
(oak . Julias 



PRESENTED 




SLAVERY IN MISSOURI 
1804-186^ 



SLAVERY IN MISSOURI 
1804-186? 



BY 
HARRISON ANTHONY TREXLER 



A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns 

Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements 

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

1914 



Baltimore 
1914 






Copyright 1914 by 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 



Gift 



jtfN '3 I9I4 



PRESS OF 

The new Era printino company 
lancaster. pa. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface vii 

CHAPTER I 
Missouri Slavery as an Economic System 

Development of the System 9 

The Size of Slave Holdings 13 

The Labor of the Slave 18 

The Hire of the Slave 28 

The Value of the Slave 37 

The Slave as an Article of Commerce 44 

The Profitableness of Slavery in Missouri 53 

CHAPTER II 
The Slave Before the Law 

The Legal Basis of the Slavery System 57 

The Missouri Slave Law 59 

The Slave as Property 60 

Civil Status of the Slave 63 

Indian Slaves 79 

CHAPTER III 
The Social Status of the Slave 

The Religion and Education of the Slave 82 

Marriage 87 

Crime 89 

Treatment of the Slave 9° 

CHAPTER IV 
The Slavery Issue in Politics and in the Churches 

Slavery and State-Rights 100 

Emancipation as a Political Issue i°9 

The Mormons and Slavery I22 

The Platte Purchase 124 

The Slavery Issue in the Churches 126 

CHAPTER V 
Senator Benton and Slavery 

The Beginnings of Abolition Agitation 134 

Annexation of Texas Favored in Missouri '37 

v 



Vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Benton's Stand on the Texas Question *4 2 

Opposition to Benton *4 2 

Benton's " Appeal " and Defeat I 5S 

Conservatism of the Whigs x 59 

Germans Opposed to Slavery l &5 

Intolerance toward Agitators J 7o 

CHAPTER VI 
Missouri and Kansas 

Missouri a Slavery Frontier '73 

Legislation to Prevent Escape of Slaves *74 

Free Kansas a Menace to Missouri ^5 

Missouri Slaveholders in the Fight for Kansas *9 2 

Heavy Loss of Slave Property in Missouri by Underground 

Railroad 202 

CHAPTER VII 
Manumission, Colonization, and Emancipation 

Legal Conditions of Manumission 2 °8 

Suits for Freedom 2l1 

Purchases of Freedom 2I 9 

Number of Manumissions and Status of Free Blacks 22 3 

Missouri State Colonization Society 22 7 

Fremont's Proclamation 2 3 2 

Abolition of Slavery by State Convention 233 

Bibliography 2 4* 



PREFACE 

The subject of this study was suggested to the writer 
several years ago by Professor Jonas Viles of the University 
of Missouri. Later it was again taken up and expanded 
when the author entered the Seminary in American History 
at the Johns Hopkins University. The writer is under great 
obligations to Professor J. M. Vincent for his advice 
throughout the preparation of the study, especially for the 
idea of emphasizing the economic side of Missouri slavery. 
Dr. R. V. D. Magoffin facilitated the work of collecting 
material both by his own efforts and by pointing out efficient 
methods of research. Although this study was practically 
completed before the election of Professor J. H. Latane to 
the chair of American History at the Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, he has critically examined the entire work and made 
many suggestions which were gladly received. 

To Mr. William Clark Breckenridge of St. Louis the 
writer owes much of the best that the study may afford. 
Mr. Breckenridge not only pointed out many valuable lines 
of work, but submitted for use his large private collection 
of manuscripts, newspaper files, and pamphlets. He also 
introduced the author to many collections of materials and 
made possible interviews with many antebellum citizens of 
St. Louis and Missouri. The writer is also indebted to 
Miss Mae Symonds of the Mercantile Library of St. Louis, 
Mr. Gaillard Hunt of the Library of Congress, Messrs. F. 
A. Sampson and F. C. Shoemaker of the State Historical 
Society of Missouri, Dean Walter Williams and Professor 
Jonas Viles of the University of Missouri, and to Judge 
Walter B. Douglas of the Missouri Historical Society for 
his cooperation and aid in finding materials in St. Louis. 

In addition the writer wishes to express his thanks to Mr. 
K. Roberts Greenfield of the Historical Department of the 



Viii PREFACE 



Johns Hopkins University for his aid in correcting manu- 
script. Above all he wishes to acknowledge the faithful and 
untiring assistance of his wife in collecting and organizing 
the materials of this study. 

H. A. T. 



SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 



CHAPTER I 

Missouri Slavery as an Economic System 

When Louisiana was purchased in 1803, there were be- 
tween two and three thousand slaves within the present 
limits of Missouri, of which only the eastern and southern 
portions were then settled. 1 By i860 the State contained 
114,931 slaves and 3572 free negroes. 2 Natural increase 
was one cause for this increase in the number of slaves, and 
importations from other slave States represented the other. 
The relative number of negroes gained from these two 
sources cannot be learned with any accuracy. The number 
of slaves born within the State is not given in the Federal 
census returns. In i860 of the 1,063,489 whites of Missouri 
160,541 were foreign born, and 475,246 were natives of the 
State. Of the remainder, 273,808 were born south of 
Mason and Dixon's line, and 153,894 in the free States and 
Territories. 3 It may fairly be assumed that these slave- 
state immigrants brought most of the slaves imported. Of 
these southern settlers 99,814 were from Kentucky, 73,594 
from Tennessee, 53,957 from Virginia, and 20,259 from 
North Carolina. It would perhaps be incorrect to assume 
that the slaves brought to Missouri were in exact propor- 
tion to the whites from the several Southern States, yet one 
may assert with a fair measure of safety that the imported 
blacks came from the four slave States named and from 

1 In 1810 there were 17,227 whites, 301 1 slaves, and 607 free blacks 
in Missouri Territory (Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 601). 
For a summary of the various census returns of the Missouri coun- 
try before the cession of Louisiana see J. Viles, " Population and 
Extent of Settlement in Missouri before 1804," in Missouri Histor- 
ical Review, vol. v, no. 4, pp. 189-213. 

2 Eighth Federal Census, Population, pp. 275, 281-282. 

3 Ibid., p. 301. 

9 



IO SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

the other slave States in some rough proportion to the whites 
from those States. 4 

To some counties immigration came in waves. In the 
thirties Carolinians settled in Pike County with their slaves ; 
later others came from Virginia and Kentucky. 5 A large 
body of Union sympathizers from eastern Tennessee took 
up land in Greene County ; Kentuckians and Virginians also 
settled on the rich soil of this county. 6 Other counties ex- 
perienced similar movements. By no means all of the 
settlers who came from slave States brought negroes or 
favored slavery, but, as will be learned in another chapter, 
hundreds of immigrants, especially those coming from Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, brought negroes, and some 
of them considerable bodies of slaves. 7 

The birth-rate was perhaps about the same as it is among 
the negroes of the State today, but because of the property 
interest of the master the death-rate may have been lower. 
For the year ending June i, 1850, the slave births in 
Missouri numbered 2699, while the deaths amounted to 
1293. 8 If these figures are correct, the births were double 
the death toll. It would be unsafe, however, to generalize 
from these limited data. 

The growth of the different classes of the population of 
Missouri was as follows : — 9 



Year 


Whites 


Free Colored 


Slaves] 


l8lO 


17,227 


607 


3,oii 


1820 


54903 


376 


9,797 


1830 


115,364 


569 


25,091 


1840 


322,295 


1478 


57,891 


1850 


592,004 


26l8 


87,422 


i860 


1,063,489 


3572 


H4,93i 



4 Six thousand and fifteen whites came to Missouri from Mary- 
land, 4395 from Arkansas, 3913 from South Carolina, 3473 from Ala- 
bama, 3324 from Mississippi, and so on (ibid.). 

5 Statement of Ex-Lieutenant Governor R. A. Campbell of Bowl- 
ing Green. 

6 Statement of Mr. Dorsey D. Berry of Springfield. 

7 See below, pp. 102-103. 

8 Seventh Federal Census, p. 665. 

9 The figures for 1810 are from the Eighth Federal Census, Popu- 
lation, p. 601. The other returns are from the Fourth Census, p. 40 ; 
Fifth Census, pp. 38, 40-41; Sixth Census, p. 418; Seventh Census, 
p. 655; Eighth Census, Population, pp. 275-283. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM I I 

It appears from these figures that the slaves increased in 
numiber but at a decreasing ratio to the whites. Between 
1810 and 1820 the slave increase was 239.48 per cent, in the 
next decade 145.46 per cent, in the next 132.11, in the next — 
1840 to 1850 — 50.1 per cent, while between 1850 and i860 
the increase was only about 33 per cent. 10 We must not 
conclude that slavery was declining because the increase was 
less decade by decade while that of the whites was con- 
tinually greater. It must be remembered that the land of 
greatest fertility was naturally occupied first, and as a result 
there was less and less room for expansion. The back 
counties were not so rich and were more difficult to reach. 
By 1840 Texas and other new regions were beginning to 
divert settlers from Missouri. However, non-slaveholding 
whites continued to fill the towns and the rougher land 
which was less adapted to slave labor. Agriculture was the 
great source of slave profit. The artisan class was white, 
and the filling up of the country rather increased than de- 
creased their possibilities in developing manufactures. Had 
slave labor in Missouri been as profitable as was German 
labor in Illinois, the occupation of the best soils would have 
limited its growth in time. Increase in population means 
more intensive agriculture. Slave labor, being largely un- 
intelligent and lacking initiative, is better suited to extensive 
farming. 

The fact that the increase of the slave population of Mis- 
souri was limited by the supply of new lands was first noticed 
in the old Mississippi River settlements. The old French 
counties along the Mississippi from St. Louis south — Jef- 
ferson, St. Genevieve, Cape Girardeau, and so forth — con- 
tained 11,647 slaves in 1850 and but 11,528 in i860. 11 
Another decrease is found in the counties along the Missouri 
from its mouth to the boundaries of Callaway and Cole — 
St. Louis, St. Charles, Franklin, Warren, Montgomery, 

10 Seventh Federal Census, p. 665. 

11 For these and the following figures see the Seventh Federal 
Census, pp. 654-655, and the Eighth Federal Census, Population, pp. 
280-283. 



12 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Gasconade, and Osage — which in this decade fell from II,- 
732 to 11,597 slaves. Increases are found in the counties 
lying on the Mississippi from the mouth of the Missouri to 
the Iowa line, — St. Charles, Lincoln, Ralls, Pike, Marion, 
Lewis, and Clark. In 1850 these counties contained 13,171 
slaves and in i860 there were 15,618. The slaves in the 
counties along the Iowa border increased from 897 in 1850 
to 1009 in i860. 

To find the real location of the slave increase of the 
State we must turn to the west. The large and excessively 
rich Missouri River counties from Callaway and Cole to 
the Kansas line — Boone, Howard, Chariton, Cooper, Saline, 
Lafayette, Ray, Clay, Jackson, and Manitou — contained 
34,135 slaves in 1850 and 45,530 ten years later. 12 The 
whole series of counties along the Kansas border from Iowa 
to Arkansas — Atchison, Buchanan, Platte, Jackson, Cass, 
Jasper, and the rest — had but 20,805 bondmen in 1850, while 
in i860 they contained 29,577. 

For two reasons these western counties increased in slave 
population faster than the eastern. In the first place, the 
land of the western counties was better, and hemp culture 
made slave labor profitable. A soil map of Missouri shows 
that the rich loam along the Missouri River surpassed any 
other land in the State. Here the slaves increased both in 
value and in price as in no other section. The eastern 
region was earlier settled, and as a consequence fewer and 
fewer slave-owners came from the South to locate there, 
while to the west settlers were still coming in large numbers 
when the Civil War opened. 

The distribution of the slaves, as well as of the free popu- 
lation of Missouri, was controlled by the same conditions. 
The French and Spanish located along the Mississippi both 
because the land was fertile and because the river offered the 

12 Some of these counties are counted twice where they are located 
at corners, or where two series of counties meet. In i860 the coun- 
ties ranked as follows in slave population: Lafayette, Howard, 
Boone, Saline, Callaway, St. Louis, Pike, Jackson, Clay. All of these 
counties save Pike are on the Missouri River. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM I 3 

only means of communication with the outer world. As the 
Anglo-Saxons invaded the Territory after the American oc- 
cupation, they went up the Missouri to the Osage, then to the 
Bonne Femme, and then on west. Settlements thus fol- 
lowed the great streams and their tributaries. In general 
the slave-master also followed the streams, this fact being 
due to the coincidence that the river counties were not only 
more accessible than the back counties, the products from 
them being therefore more readily marketed, but were also 
more productive. It may be said, then, that the slave- 
holder followed the river because the railroad and the high- 
way were not yet opening the back country. He remained 
in these river counties because they contained lands of un- 
surpassed fertility. 

In Missouri as in the other border States the slave was put 
to general farm work rather than to the producing of a 
staple crop. The great plantation of the Mississippi and 
Louisiana type with its white overseer and gangs of driven 
blacks was comparatively uncommon in the State. Very 
few masters had a hundred slaves, not many had half that 
number. There were some farmers, however, who em- 
ployed a considerable body of negroes. 

The number of slaves held is most difficult to find with 
any accuracy. Personal information from contemporaries 
conflicts with the census reports and the county tax returns. 
For example, an old boat's clerk, Mr. Hunter Ben Jenkins 
of St. Louis, who spent much time in the great Missouri 
River slave counties, claims that the largest slaveholder of 
the State was Jabez F. Smith of Jackson County, who 
owned 165 negroes. In contrast with this statement the 
Jackson County tax book of i860 credits Jabez F. Smith 
with but 42 slaves. 13 Therefore, Smith either dodged his 

13 MS. Tax Book, Jackson County, i860, pp. 151-152. The Eighth 
Federal Census (Population, p. 280) gives the Jackson County slave 
population at 3440 as against the 3316 listed in the tax book of that 
year. But this small difference does not account for the discrepancy 
of four to one in the reported numbers of Smith's slaves. Mr. 
James Peacock of Independence, who was an acquaintance of 



14 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

taxes enormously or had fewer slaves by far than his neigh- 
bors thought. 

From the local returns gathered for the Federal census 
it is found that there were some fairly large slaveholders 
for a country of diversified agriculture which, as compared 
with the plantations further south, was a community of small 
farms. These figures should be more complete than the 
tax returns, as they were not collected for purposes of 
taxation. These census reports for 1850 show that in 
Cooper County John H. Ragland was the leading slave- 
owner, being credited with 70 negroes, including infants and 
the aged. He lived on a farm of 1072 acres, 500 of which 
were under cultivation. Of these 70 slaves 29 were over 
fifteen years of age. His land was worked by 34 horses, 
mules, and oxen. His produce in hand was large, — 4000 
bushels of wheat, the same amount of corn, 400 bushels of 
oats, and 7000 pounds of tobacco. He had 140 swine and 
24 head of cattle besides his oxen. 14 

The second largest Cooper County slaveholder was Henry 
E. Moore, who had 32 negroes, of whom 23 were over 
fifteen years of age. He possessed 250 acres of improved 
and 150 acres of unimproved land, 57 work animals, 5000 
bushels of corn, 400 of oats, 200 swine, and 32 cattle. 15 
These represent the more affluent Missouri farmers who 
were not engaged in producing a staple crop. An example 
of a less favored farmer is Joseph Byler, who owned 11 
slaves, only 4 of whom were over fifteen years of age — 2 
men and 2 women. Byler owned 100 acres of improved 

Smith's, told the present writer that " Smith had many more than 
forty-two slaves." Mr. Peacock suggested that the infants and aged 
negroes were often not listed by the assessor, but 123 of Smith's 165 
slaves could hardly have been infants and very old people. In the 
tax books old and young are alike given, as is the case with Smith's. 
In the earlier tax returns young negroes were not included. In the 
St. Charles County tax book of 1815 only slaves above ten years of 
age are listed, while in the Franklin County tax list of 1823^ only 
those over three years were given. But if the assessor did omit the 
infants and the aged, he but eliminated those who were not effective 
producers, and with such a class there is little concern here. 

14 MS. Census Enumeration, Cooper County, 1850, Schedule no. 2. 

15 Ibid. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM I 5 

and 140 acres of unimproved land, 14 work animals, 32 head 
of cattle, 80 sheep, 50 swine, 1000 bushels of corn, and 200 
each of wheat and oats. 16 These examples give an idea of 
the external economic conditions of the slave society in a 
rich river county. 

If the old French Mississippi River county of St. Gen- 
evieve in eastern Missouri is examined, some large holders 
are found there. In i860 John Coffman was the chief 
slave-owner, having 78 negroes living in fourteen cabins. 
Joseph Coffman, the second largest holder, had 32, and the 
third, Hiram Blaclege, possessed 27 slaves who were domi- 
ciled in eight cabins. 17 Although the tax levies discount 
slave property, nevertheless in many cases they are the only 
means of obtaining information. If the tax lists omit the 
slave children and the wornout blacks, they but fail to in- 
clude those who did not labor and who had little economic 
significance save as a burden to the owner. The probate 
records would be an exact source of knowledge as to the 
size of slave holdings, but as only those who died in slavery 
days had their slaves listed in such records, an examination 
must be made of the assessors' returns. 18 

In Boone County the heirs of R. King were assessed in 
i860 with 57 slaves, 19 and W. C. Robinett with 50. 20 In the 
adjoining county of Howard William Swinney paid taxes 
on 86 slaves valued at $44,800 and on 1369 acres of land. 21 
J. C. Carter of Pike County was assessed in 1859 with 
43 slaves, 22 and Andrew Ashbaugh with 37. 23 In 1856 
Dugan Frouts of Buchanan County was listed as having 28 

16 MS. Census Enumeration, Cooper County, 1850, Schedule no. 2. 

17 MS. Census Enumeration, St. Genevieve County, i860, Sched- 
ule no. 2. 

18 Thomas A. Smith of Saline County left in 1844 a large estate 
in which were included 77 negroes (MS. Probate Records, Saline 
County, Box no. 248, Inventory and Appraisement, filed November 
11, 1844). 

19 The heirs of R. King (MS. Tax Book, Boone County, i860, 
p. 18). 

20 This was William C. Robinett (ibid., p. 118). 

21 MS. Tax Book, Howard County, 1856. George Cason was 
second with 52 negroes, and John R. White third with 46 (ibid.). 

22 MS. Tax Book, Pike County, 1859, P- 48. 

23 Ibid., p. 1. 



1 6 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

negroes and 320 acres of land, 24 and J. C. Ingram as having 
26 slaves and 160 acres. 25 The Clay County tax books 
could not be found entire. However, figures for 1858 are 
obtainable for the southwestern portion of the county, the 
section just across the Missouri from Kansas City. Here 
on the rich riverbottom John Daugherty was assessed with 
33 negroes and 2420 acres of land, 26 and Michael Arthur 
with 30 slaves and 1880^ acres. 27 

In southeast Missouri the records show that in Cape 
Girardeau County the largest holders were assessed with 40 
slaves in 1856. 28 In the southwest portion of the State, in 
the rich county of Greene, Daniel D. Berry was taxed on 
37 negroes worth $13,300, 23 horses and mules, and 4320 
acres of land worth $33,760, and John Lair and Solomon C. 
Neville on 24 slaves each, the former's valued at $16,200 
and the latter's at $io,ooo. 29 In the northern counties of 
Daviess and Macon the holdings were smaller. In 1854 
Alfred Ray of Macon County was taxed on 31 slaves, and 
the second largest holder, James W. Medley, on 13, 30 while 
in Daviess County Milton N. Moore, the chief owner of 
slaves, was assessed with but 16. 31 

The Reverend Frederick Starr ("Lynceus") says that 
there were some plantations along the Missouri River having 
from 150 to 400 slaves. From the above figures it appears 
that a Missouri plantation with as many as 400 slaves must 
have been extremely rare. 32 In fact, the average slave- 
master had many less than the great holders mentioned in 
the preceding paragraphs. For instance, in Cooper County 
in 1850 of the 636 slaveholders 173 had but 1 negro each, 

24 MS. Tax Book, Buchanan County, 1:856, p. 59. 

25 Ibid., p. 85. 

26 MS. Tax Book, Clay County, 1858, p. 17. 

27 Ibid., p. 2. 

28 MS. Tax Book, Cape Girardeau County, 1856. These were T. 
H. and Lucy Walker. 

29 MS. Tax Book, Greene County, 1858. By i860 Berry's slaves 
on the tax book numbered 42 (MS. Tax Book, Greene County, 
i860). 

30 MS. Assessors' List, Macon County, 1854, pp. 86, 63. 

31 MS. Tax Book, Daviess County, 1857, p. 29. 

32 Letters to the People in the Present Crisis [1853], Letter no. 
1, p. 9. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 1 7 

and 102 possessed but 2. The average for the whole county 
was 4.67 slaves to the master. 33 Just across the Missouri 
in Boone County the average was almost the same — 4.83 per 
owner in i860. 34 Journeying on west up the Missouri to 
Jackson County a similar condition is met. Here in i860 
the average was 4.5 slaves to the master. 35 To the north of 
Jackson in Buchanan County the average was considerably 
less — 3.6 in 1856, 36 which was a little higher than the average 
sixteen years previously in the same county, when it 
was 3.2. 37 

In looking eastward to the prosperous Mississippi River 
county of Pike the average is found to be slightly less. In 
this county in 1859 there were listed on the tax book 3733 
slaves owned by 908 masters, or 4.18 negroes to the master. 38 
To the north of Pike in the extreme northeastern corner of 
the State is Clark County. The 129 masters of this county 
averaged 3.14 slaves each in i860. 39 In the old French 
county of St. Genevieve the average holding in i860 was 
5.16 negroes. 40 

33 MS. Census Enumeration, Cooper County, 1850, Schedule no. 2. 
The Reverend Mr. Starr, who in 1853 endeavored to prove that 
slavery was declining in Missouri, divided the number of farms in 
the State, as given by the Federal census of 1850, and found the 
number of slaves per farm (Letter no. 1, pp. 9-12). But as even a 
small truck farm, which naturally could not support slave hands, 
was included in the government report, his results seem purpose- 
less. It appears much more to the point to find the average of those 
who really had slaves than_ to find how many each farmer would 
have in case of an equal division — a condition impossible on its face. 
Hinton R. Helper stated that there were 19,185 slaveholders in Mis- 
souri in 1850 (The Impending Crisis, p. 146). From the averages 
given above in this study the 114,931 slaves of the State were owned 
by about 24,000 masters. This is merely a rough estimate. 

34 MS. Tax Book, Boone County, i860, gives 4354 slaves and 902 
owners. 

35 MS. Tax Book, Jackson County, i860: 3316 slaves and 736 
owners. 

36 MS. Tax Book, Buchanan County, 1856: 1534 slaves and 425 
owners. 

37 MS. Tax Book, Buchanan County, 1840: 177 slaves and 55 
owners. 

38 MS. Tax Book, Pike County, 1859: 3733 slaves and 908 owners. 

39 History of Lewis, Clark, Knox and Scotland Counties (St. 
Louis and Chicago, 1889), P- 305: 405 slaves and 129 owners. 

40 MS. Census Enumeration, St. Genevieve County, i860, Schedule 
no. 2: 615 slaves and 119 owners. 



1 8 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

Many of these masters actually held only one or two 
negroes each. In i860 Jackson township, St. Genevieve 
County, contained 32 slaves owned by 10 persons. Of these 
10 owners there were three who had but one slave,, 2 had 
2 negroes, 2 owned 3, 2 had 6, and another 7. 41 In this 
year there were 497 masters paying taxes on 1383 slaves 
in St. Louis city. Of these owners 217 were taxed on 1 
negro each and 104 on 2 negroes. In other words, 321 of 
the 497 slaveholders of the city returned less than 3 
negroes. 42 In Greene County in 1858 there were 567 slaves 
in the district about Springfield. These were owned by 108 
persons, of whom 38 held 1 slave each and 31 held 2, 69 of 
the 108 masters having less than 3 slaves. 43 A similar situa- 
tion is found in the newer county of Audrain in the earlier 
period, where in 1837 there were 26 masters and 68 taxable 
slaves. Of these 26 owners 13 were assessed with 1 slave 
and 8 with 2 each. 44 

From the figures given it appears that Missouri was a 
State of small slaveholdings. How these slaves were em- 
ployed will next claim our attention. 

The single slave held by so many persons was usually a 
cook or a personal servant, or perhaps a " boy " for all-round 
work. Often a slave man and his wife were owned. The 
probate records are filled with the appraisements of estates 
holding one or two slaves. 45 Captain Joseph A. Wilson of 

41 MS. Census Enumeration, St. Genevieve County, i860, Sched- 
ule no. 2. 

42 MS. Tax Book, St. Louis City, i860, six vols. It is interesting 
to learn that among these St. Louis slaveholders of i860 were Frank 
Blair, who was taxed on 1 negro (ibid., Book A to B, p. 115) ; Sena- 
tor Trusten Polk, on 2 (ibid., Book P to S, p. 44) ; Mrs. U. S. Grant, 
on 3 (ibid., Book G to K, p. 59), and the St. Louis University, which 
held 6 taxable slaves (ibid., Book P to S, p. 220). 

43 MS. Tax Book, Greene County, 1858. At this time Greene 
County was much larger than at present. 

44 MS. Tax Book, Audrain County, 1837. This return lacks the 
taxpayers whose initials were A and B, but this would not neces- 
sarily change the proportion. James E. Fenton was taxed on 17 
of the 68 slaves then on the list. 

45 An interesting example of this holding of a single servant is 
found in the appraisement of the estate of Louise Ann Pippin, whose 
personal property was composed of six trunks containing clothing 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 1 9 

Lexington declared that every decent Missouri family had 
at least one slave, and usually from two to four, as house 
servants. So many of the antebellum settlers of the State 
being from the border and Southern States, the idea of white 
servants was not congenial, even had there been a supply 
of them. Many slaves, as in other southern communities, 
were nurses and acted as maids to the female members of 
the family. " Slavery in western Missouri," wrote a con- 
temporary, " was like slavery in northern Kentucky — much 
more a domestic than a commercial institution. Family 
servants constituted the bulk of ownership, and few families 
owned more than one family of blacks. The social habits 
were those of the farm and not of the plantation. The 
white owner, with his sons, labored in the same fields with 
the negroes both old and young. The mistress guided the 
industries in the house in both colors." 46 

The fifteen hundred slaves of St. Louis seem to have been 
quite largely employed as domestics, though as the city grew 
the German and the Irish immigrant assumed this work. 
When Anthony Trollope visited St. Louis in 1862, the Civil 
War and the coming of the alien had nearly driven the 
household slave from the city. 47 The further discussion of 
the slave as a domestic is not necessary, as this function of 
the negro is a commonplace. 

The slave was early put to work at clearing the land, much 
of which was timbered. Advertisements for such negroes 
are to be found in the papers of the early period. 48 



appraised at $75, and " 1 negro Boy Philbert aged 18 Years," valued 
at $550 (MS. Probate Records, St. Louis, Estate no. 2653, filed 
August 14, 1849). 

46 J. G. Haskell, " The Passing of Slavery in Western Missouri," 
in Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society, vol. vii, p. 31. 

47 North America, p. 381. He writes: "Slaves are not generally 
employed in St. Louis for domestic service ... St. Louis has none 
of the aspects of a slave city." When Maximilian, Prince of Wied, 
visited St. Louis in 1832-34, he found that " the greater part of the 
workmen in the port, and all the servants of St. Louis, are negroes 
. . . who in the State of Missouri are all slaves" ("Travels in the 
Interior of North America," in R. G. Thwaites, Early Western 
Travels, vol. xxii, p. 216). 

48 " Wanted, To hire ... an industrious negro man who is a good 
hand at choping with an axe" (Missouri Herald [Jackson], Septem- 



20 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The rivers were the great highways for both passenger 
and freight traffic till the forties and fifties brought the 
railroads, and they quite largely retained the freight traffic 
till after slavery days. The boating business being very 
lucrative, the hire of surplus slave labor for cabin and deck 
work was very common. As early as 1816 Pierre Chouteau 
bought a slave who was " a working hand on a keel boat." 49 
A traveller descending the Mississippi in 1858 stated that 
the crew and stokers on the boats were all slaves. 50 A 
Kansas immigrant who ascended the Missouri in 1857 ob- 
served that the deck hands were colored, 51 while another 
contemporary states that the Missouri River boats usually 
had a cabin crew of about twenty, " generally colored." 52 

This use of blacks on the rivers caused race feeling. An 
old boatman says that there were not enough free negroes, 
and consequently slaves were used as cabin crews. There- 
fore the custom developed that whites would not permit 
negroes to touch the freight. This division of the races 
seems evident from the following advertisement of 1854: 
"Wanted to hire by the Year, Ten negro boys, from 15 to 
20 years of age — suitable for cabin boys. Also fifteen 
negro men for firemen, on a steamboat. Smith and Wat- 
kins." 53 According to an old boatman, these colored river 



ber 4, 1819). In the Missouri Intelligencer and Boone's Lick Adver- 
tiser (Franklin) of November 25, 1823, is read, "A Negro Woman, 
Healthy and Masculine, who can turn out 100 rails per day. May 
be hired." 

49 Lagrange v. Chouteau, 2 Mo., 19. 

50 C. Mackay, Life and Liberty in America, p. 151. 

51 A. D. Richardson, Beyond the Mississippi River, p. 285. In the 
St. Joseph Commercial Cycle of May 11, 1855, there is found an 
expense account of a steamer running between St. Louis and St. 
Joseph. In this table are listed twelve " boys " at $25 each per 
month. As this term was applied to negro men and as the above 
accounts state that the cabin crews were generally colored, it seems 
probable that negroes were here meant. " Uncle " John Dill of 
Cape Girardeau claims that good river hands brought as high as 
$45 per month, as a trusted boat hand was considered very valuable. 
He stated that he knew of masters who gave their negroes a silver 
watch or a bill after a cruise on the river. 

52 G. B. Merrick, Old Times on the Upper Mississippi [1854- 
1863], p. 64. 

53 Republican (St. Louis), February 7, 1854. There is found the 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 21 

hands received from twenty to thirty dollars a month and 
keep. 54 The employment of free blacks and slaves on the 
river caused a strong protest on the part of a St. Louis 
editor in 1841. He asserted that the practice enabled 
abolitionists to communicate with the slaves of the State, 
and made them discontented. He spoke of the crews as 
" the profligate reckless band of slaves and free negroes . . . 
habitually employed as stewards, firemen, and crews on our 
steamboats." 55 

A considerable number of slaves seem to have been 
worked in the Missouri and Illinois lead mines. 56 In 1719 
Renault brought a few to work the Fort Chartres and later 
the Missouri lead deposits. Some were seen working at 
Potosi as miners by Schoolcraft in 1819. 57 Later travellers, 
however, do not mention slaves working the mines of that 
region. Missouri slaves hired to work the saline deposits 
of the Illinois country provoked much litigation and a careful 
interpretation of the Ordinance of 1787. 58 

The slave also did general work about town and city as 
the negroes do today. 59 The chief interest here, however, 

following advertisement in the Daily Missourian (St. Louis) of May 
7, 1845 : " For hire — a woman chambermaid in the city or on the 
river ...LB. Burbbayge." 

54 Mr. Hunter B. Jenkins of St. Louis. 

55 Daily Evening Gazette (St. Louis), August 18, 1841. 

56 American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. iv, p. 800. 

57 H. R. Schoolcraft, A View of the Lead Mines of Missouri, 
pp. 15, 40. 

58 See below, pp. 216-217. 

59 Schoolcraft also states that "theie are a considerable number 
[of slaves] at present [1819] nearly every good plantation, and many 
mines being wrought by them." He also states that many slaves 
served as blacksmiths and carpenters. " It has led to a state of 
society which is calculated to require their assistance" (pp. 40, 176). 
Slaves were also used as draymen, according to a traffic regulating 
ordinance of St. Louis of June 13, 1835, sec. 12 (Missouri Argus 
[St. Louis], June 19, 1835). This use of slaves caused some trouble 
(Mayor, etc., of St. Louis v. Hempstead, 4 Mo., 242). Slaves were 
also licensed as hucksters, hawkers, and so on (St. Louis Ordi- 
nances, 1836, p. 145). In the Jeffersonian Republican (Jefferson 
City) of January 16, 1835, there is the notice of an escaped slave 
who had worked in " Massey's Iron Works" near Jefferson City. 
The tobacco firm of Spear and Swinney of Fayette employed slaves. 
They were assessed with 34 negroes in 1856 (MS. Tax Book, 
Howard County, 1856). 



22 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

lies in the agricultural slave. Whether or not free labor 
could have been obtained to work the fields of Missouri is 
a question about which contemporaries still living are not 
agreed. From their statements it is evident that the supply 
of free labor varied in the different parts of the State, 60 but 
the fact remains that slave labor really did the larger part 
of the work of the State. 

Missouri was a State with a great variety of topography 
and soils, and a number of products were raised in great 
abundance. 61 The majority of Missouri bondmen were em- 
ployed as general field hands. Statements of men who lived 
in various parts of the State convey the idea that the 
plantation with its overseer, " task system," and great negro 
gangs was not common. Except in hemp culture, where the 
task system prevailed, the Missouri rural negro is to be 
considered a general farm hand as he is today. A promi- 
nent Kansan who viewed slavery as it existed in western 

60 Among some two dozen contemporaries living in the great slave 
counties opinion as to the availability of free labor was varied. 
Most of those questioned claimed that free white labor was scarce. 
Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty said that abolition agitation kept 
white labor from the State. Colonel R. B. C. Wilson of Platte 
City stated that there was no free labor in Platte County. Captain 
J. A. Wilson of Lexington declared that free black labor was con- 
sidered a menace, and that white labor was scarce in Lafayette 
County. Colonel James A. Gordon of Marshall said that free labor 
was usually obtainable in Saline County. " Uncle " Henry Napper, 
who was a slave in the same county, remembers that his master 
hired some free labor at harvest and other heavy seasons. "Lynceus" 
(Reverend Frederick Starr), who endeavored to prove that slavery 
was dying in the State, declared (1853) that the price of slaves was 
high because there was so little white labor (Letter no. i, p. 6). 
James Aull of Lexington, who was a prominent trader of western 
Missouri, wrote to a correspondent in Philadelphia on June 15, 1835 : 
" We are the owners of slaves, in this State as well as in other 
slave holding states you must either have slaves for servants or 
yourself and family do your own work" (to Siter, Price and Com- 
pany. In the collection of Messrs. E. U. Hopkins and J. Chamber- 
lain of Lexington). 

61 For the year ending June, 1850, Missouri produced 2,981,652 
bu. of wheat; 44,268 bu. rye; 36,214,537 bu. corn; 5,278,079 bu. oats; 
17,113,784 lbs. tobacco; 1,627,164 lbs. wool; 939,006 bu. Irish and 
335t5°5 bu. sweet potatoes; 23,641 bu. luckwheat; 116,925 tons hay; 
15,968 tons hemp; 527,160 lbs. flax, and so forth. The State also 
contained 225,319 horses; 41,667 asses and mules; 230,169 milch 
cows; 112,168 oxen; 449,173 other cattle; 762,511 sheep; 1,702,625 
swine (Seventh Federal Census, p. lxxxii). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 23 

Missouri states that the slave was an all-round laborer, there 
being no classification of " domestic servants " and " field 
hands." 62 

The severity of the slave's labor will be treated in a later 
chapter of this study, but the nature of his work, especially 
in the hemp country, deserves attention in this connection. 
Hemp was the great Missouri staple, although its culture 
was mostly restricted to the Missouri River counties. Other 
products were raised in greater abundance, but in some 
regions hemp was the chief crop. " From the first settle- 
ment of the county," wrote a citizen of Platte County, 
" hemp was the staple product. We became wealthy by its 
culture. No soil on earth, whether timber or prairie, is 
better adapted to hemp than Platte County. . . . But no 
machinery ever invented superseded the hand-break in clean- 
ing it. . . . Negroes were, therefore, in demand, and stout 
men sold readily for $1,200 to $i,400." 63 As a hemp State 
Missouri was second only to Kentucky, and the quality of 
her hemp was said by J. C. Breckinridge to be even superior 
to that of his own State. 64 American hemp passed through 
many vicissitudes because of the tariff, and often met the 
competition of better hemp from Russia. The market 

62 Haskell, p. 31. 

63 W. M. Paxton, Annals of Platte County, p. 37. In 1854 Judge 
Leonard of Buchanan County raised 1426 lbs. per acre on a ten-acre 
field. It was a virgin crop, however (St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, 
May 18, 1855). 

64 B. Moore, A Study of the Past, the Present, and the Possi- 
bilities of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky, p. 60, quoting from a 
letter of Breckinridge's of January 10, 1854, to C. J. Sanders, the 
Navy's hemp agent. In i860 the great Missouri hemp counties were : 
Saline 3920 tons; Lafayette 3547 tons; Platte 1783 tons; Pike 1608 
tons ; Buchanan 1479 tons ; the whole State 19,267 tons. Some of 
this was water-rotted, but most of it was dew-rotted. Gentry County 
produced 600 tons of water-rotted hemp but no dew-rotted (Eighth 
Federal Census, Agriculture, pp. 90-94). In 1850 Missouri was 
credited with 4 " hemp dressers," 48 ropemakers, and 191 rope- 
making establishments, each turning out over $500 worth of material 
a year (Seventh Federal Census, Statistics, p. 674). In 1850 the 
great hemp counties were: Platte 4345 tons; Lafayette 2462 tons; 
Buchanan 1894 tons; Saline 1559 tons; Clay 1274 tons; the whole 
State 15,968 tons, of which 60 tons were water-rotted (ibid., pp. 
679-680). 



24 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

finally dropped about 1870 when the South substituted iron 
hoops for hemp rope in baling cotton. 65 

The healthy western Missouri negro must have been a 
profitable investment as a hemp cutter and breaker if the 
slave was a paying investment anywhere. " I can remember 
how twenty or thirty negroes would work in line cutting 
hemp with sickles. It was then left to rot till January. 
Then it was broken and the pith removed by means of a 
heavy crusher which the slave swung up and down. He 
often received the lash if not breaking his one hundred 
pounds. I have seen a long line of wagons loaded with 
hemp extending from the river nearly to the court house." 
Thus a citizen of Lexington describes the hemp culture in 
Lafayette County. 66 " The farmers of Missouri seldom 

65 Thomas S. Forman of Louisville wrote in 1844: "The price of 
hemp, bagging and bale rope has declined almost in ratio of their 
increased production; thus in 1835 with a crop of 7,000 or 8,ooo tons 
in all the western States, it was $10.00 to $12.00 per hundred weight. 
. . . Since then, under the stimulating influence of the tariff of 
1842, the products are four or five times the amount they were in 
1835, and the price is $3.00 per hundred weight. . . . These prices 
do not remunerate the grower or manufacturer" (Moore, Hemp 
Culture in Kentucky, pp. 53-54). The poorer American dew-rotted 
hemp had to compete with the superior Russian water-rotted, which 
was said to exceed the former by at least ten or fifteen pounds per 
hundred weight (ibid., p. 55). The loss of the cotton crop during 
the Civil War injured the demand for hemp bagging and rope. 
" Formerly, when bagging and rope were worth more per pound 
than cotton, they were considered one of the expenses of cotton 
shipping; now that cotton was twenty-five cents a pound, the bag- 
ging and rope were only six or seven cents a pound, rope and bag- 
ging were not spared, since they weighed in with the cotton bale. 
It was for the sake of the spinner rather than the cotton grower, 
that iron ties were substituted for hemp rope during the years 
around 1870. The inability of Kentucky to supply bagging enough 
created competition of jute bagging, which, during the early seven- 
ties, almost completely disabled hemp bagging" (ibid., pp. 62-63). 

66 Statement of Captain Joseph A. Wilson. In 1855 one S. A. 
Clemens of St. Louis invented a hempbreaker which was propelled 
by steam or by horsepower. The hemp stocks could be used for fuel. 
It was said to have a capacity of breaking a ton in ten hours, and if 
the hemp was very fine, a ton and a half. Three men could run it 
(St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, May 18, 1855). W. B. Napton states 
that " John Lock Hardeman, about 1850 . . . invented a hemp break- 
ing machine, which lessened the labor to a considerable extent, and 
about the year 1854 an attachment had been added to the McCor- 
mick reaper by which hemp was cut by machinery also" (Past and 
Present in Saline County, p. 132). Mr. Napton claims to write from 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 2$ 

stack hemp," runs a letter of the slavery regime. " They 
suffer it to receive enough rain, after cutting, to color it. It 
is then taken up and shocked without binding. About the 
middle of October it is spread out to rot. Our winters are 
so dry that the hemp must receive several rains before it is 
shocked." 67 

It was the task of the slave to break one hundred pounds 
of hemp a day, receiving one cent per pound for all broken 
in excess of that amount. Many slaves broke from a 
hundred and seventy-five to two hundred, some as many 
as three hundred pounds a day. The work seems to have 
been heavy, but the possibility of making a dollar or more 
a day made it popular with the ambitious slaves. 68 Hemp 
became the staple in western Missouri to such an extent 
that, according to the statement of an old negro, his master 
could find no market for his wheat. 69 Hemp was even 

personal experience. On the other hand, Mr. Paxton asserts that no 
machine that was ever invented superseded the handbreaking of 
hemp by the slave. The work was so very arduous that after the 
War the freed negro would not engage in it (p. 37). 

67 Paxton, p. 81, quoting a letter of unknown date from an un- 
known person. 

68 Mr. Dean D. Duggins of Marshall stated that their old Jim 
could break 300 pounds a day at one dollar per hundred over the 
task, and that Jim had quite a sum of money when the War opened. 
"Uncle" Henry Napper of Marshall, a wiry little negro, formerly 
owned by Mr. Duggins's family, said that he could not break over 175 
pounds, but that many broke 200, and some 300 pounds. " Uncle " 
Eph Sanders of Platte City claims that he could break 200 pounds. 
Captain J. A. Wilson of Lexington stated that many slaves made a 
dollar a day and were paid in silver at Christmas, the negroes keep- 
ing accounts on notched sticks and the owner or overseer in his 
books. Mr. Hunter B. Jenkins knew slaves in Lafayette County 
who made from seventy-five cents to a dollar a day breaking hemp. 
" Uncle " Peter Clay of Liberty said that he broke 165 pounds in a 
day, and that he would as soon break hemp as do any other hard 
work, while Henry Napper said that it was very hard labor. Dr. 
John Doy says that while he was a prisoner in the Platte City 
jail a young negro owned by one William Ry waters, living near 
Camden Point, told him that " both men and women had a task 
given them, the latter to break one hundred pounds of hemp a day 
and the former still more, and received a lash for every pound they 
fell short" (J. Doy. Narrative of John Doy of Lawrence, Kansas, p. 
60). But Doy had both a political and a private grudge against 
slaveowners, and consequently gathered all the hard tales about 
them he could find. 

69 Statement of Henry Napper of Marshall. 



26 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

used as a medium of commerce in some cases, like tobacco 
in old Virginia. 70 

The other staple crops of Missouri were tobacco and 
cotton. The culture of the latter was restricted to the 
southern part of the State. Tobacco was raised to a greater 
or less degree throughout the eastern and central regions. 
As today, many farmers raised tobacco, not as a staple, but 
as they did corn or wheat. 71 " In the tobacco regions of the 
State," says a prominent citizen of Pike County, " there 
was no task system for the slaves. They were expected, 
and in many instances required, to do a reasonable day's 
work." 72 

The slave seems to have been a very slight factor in the 
cotton culture of the State. The cotton counties ranked as 
follows in i860: Stoddard, Shannon, Dunklin, Dallas, 
Jasper, and Barry. 73 Their slave population was very 
small, — Stoddard 189, Shannon 6, Dunklin 152, Dallas 88, 
Jasper 317, and Barry 217. 74 Contemporaries remember 
few or no slaves in the cotton fields and no task system. As 
in the tobacco culture, the few slaves employed worked as 
general field hands. 75 Outside of the hemp fields the task 
system was seldom practiced in the State. A negress who 
was a slave in Madison and St. Francis Counties claims that 



70 The following notice is found in the Weston Platte Argus of 
December 19, 1856: "All persons indepted to us . . . are hereby 
requested to come forward and settle, with Cash, Hemp or give 
approved security . . . Belt, Coleman & Co." 

71 In i860 Missouri ranked seventh in tobacco culture, producing 
25,086,196 lbs. The great tobacco counties were: Chariton 4,356,024 
lbs.; Howard 2,871,584 lbs.; Randolph 1,918,715 lbs.; Callaway 1,433,- 
374 lbs.; Macon 1,396,673 lbs.; Lincoln 1,356,105 lbs.; Monroe 1.325,- 
386 lbs.; Pike 1,194,715 lbs. (Eighth Federal Census, Agriculture, pp. 
xliv, 88-94). 

72 Statement of Ex-Lieutenant-Governor R. A. Campbell of Bowl- 
ing Green. t#*W 

73 Missouri was credited with no tofea^d in 1850. In i860 the 
State raised 44>i88 bales of 400 lbs. each. Stoddard County pro- 
duced 19,100 bales, Shannon 10,877, Dunklin 7000, Dallas 1200, Jasper 
972, and Barry 500 (Eighth Federal Census, Agriculture, pp. 90-94). 

74 Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 280. 

75 Several old settlers of the cotton counties were questioned, but 
all denied that a task system existed in the cotton fields or that any 
number of slaves were employed in them. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 2J 

she had to weave four yards a day and fill the quills. The 
spinning of eight "cuts" (one hundred and fifty threads 
to the "cut") was a day's work. Often she wove or spun 
till dark after working all day in the fields. She worked 
neither Saturday afternoons nor Sundays. 76 

The Missouri law forbade a master to work his slaves 
on Sunday, except in regular housework or labor for 
charity. Field work was thus forbidden on Sunday. The 
penalty for the master was one dollar for each negro so 
employed. 77 This law was enforced in some instances at 
least, as on February 28, 1853, the Boone County circuit 
court fined R. R. Rollins five dollars " for working slaves 
on Sunday." 78 

As there were few great plantations in the State, the 
systematic but brutal overseer — that grewsome evil genius 
of so many slave tales — was not often seen in Missouri. 
Widows who needed a farm manager at times employed an 
overseer, and some tobacco and hemp farmers had white 
managers. Usually a trusted slave, called a " driver," or 
one of the sons laid out the work for the slaves, so that the 
hired white overseer managing great gangs of negroes was 
not a characteristic Missouri figure. Contemporaries are 
nearly unanimous on this point. 79 

76 Mrs. Anice (or Alice) Washington of St. Louis. 

77 Law of July 4, 1825 (Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 310, sec. 90). 

78 MS. Records, Boone County Circuit Court, Book F, p. 190. 

79 Ex-Lieutenant-Governor R. A. Campbell of Pike County stated 
that some widows and a few tobacco farmers of the county had 
overseers, but that general farming was the rule in most of the 
county. Mr. J. H. Sallee of Mexico, formerly of Marion County, 
remembers no overseers or task system in that county. Mr. John 
W. Beatty of Mexico said that the overseer and the task system 
were seldom seen in Audrain County, Robert St. Clair having the 
only overseer he remembers. Mr. Robert B. Price of Columbia 
stated that there were no overseers in the southern sense in Boone 
or neighboring counties. Mr. George Carson remembers a few over- 
seers in Howard and adjacent counties. Captain J. A. Wilson of 
Lexington said that there were a few overseers in Lafayette County, 
some farmers with over twenty negroes hiring one, but that usually 
a son or a negro " driver " managed the hands. The latter was 
often more severe than a white overseer. Colonel D. C. Allen of 
Liberty said that there were some white overseers in Clay County. 
Mr. E. W. Strode of Independence stated that he knew of very few 



28 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Without the overseer and the horror of drudgery in 
pestilent rice and sugar swamps, the despair of the slave 
could not have been so great as in the far South. As the 
negroes of Missouri today work about the town or the farm, 
so they must have labored in slavery days, except that more 
of them worked than now and the hours of labor were 
longer. The great slave counties of antebellum days are 
the great negro counties of today, save where urban at- 
tractions have caused the negroes to flock to the cities. 

Many slave-owners naturally had more of such labor than 
they could utilize. Negroes inherited by professional men 
and other townsmen often had little work except as house- 
hold servants. The excess hands were therefore hired to 
those needing their services. 80 These slave-masters retained 
their slaves either because they thought the investment was 
paying, or in order to preserve the family dignity, which 
was largely based on slave property. Widows were unable 
to alienate their slaves if there were other heirs, and con- 
sequently hired them out as a means of income. The slaves 
of orphans and of estates in probate were annually hired 

overseers in Jackson County, as a negro foreman usually managed 
the slaves. Mr. George F. Shaw of Independence, formerly of 
Franklin County, said that there were few overseers in the latter 
county, as general farming was the rule. Mr. Dorsey D. Berry and 
Mr. Martin J. Hubble of Springfield stated that the overseer was 
not seen in Greene County. 

Overseers were at times advertised for, as may be learned from 
the Daily Missourian of November 16, 1845 : " Wanted — an overseer 
with a wife to go on a farm. ...LB. Burbbayge." The Seventh 
Federal Census states that there were 64 " overseers " in Missouri 
in 1850 (p. 674). In i860 there were 256 of them in the State 
(Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 303). This term seems to 
have been applied to the familiar negro overseer, as of the 37,830 
in the United States 32,458 were accredited to the slave States (ibid., 
pp. 670-671). On the other hand, Pennsylvania is given 1241 of 
these "overseers" (ibid., p. 440), and Massachusetts 1098 (ibid., 
p. 228). From this it appears that the term in some cases must have 
been applied to ordinary foremen or managers. 

80 One Alexander Stuart offered to hire out nineteen slaves, which 
were doubtless excess hands as he at the same time advertised for 
an overseer, and so could hardly have been giving up farming (The 
Missourian [St. Charles], December 31, 1821). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 20, 

out by the court, bond being necessary " for the amount 
of hire." 81 

As the State developed, the hire of the slave advanced in 
price approximately in proportion to the increasing value of 
slave property. Excepting in the earlier part of this 
period, 82 negroes seem to have been hired almost entirely by 
the year, without reference to the busy planting and harvest 
seasons or to the slack months when their possession must 
have been a burden. Some were even hired for terms of 
years. 83 This well illustrates the weakness of the entire 
slavery system. In addition to the cash paid by the hirer, 
he also furnished the slave with medical attention, food, and 
a customary amount of clothing. An old slave claims that 
the hired slave of western Missouri usually received two 
pairs of trousers, two shirts, and a hat the first summer, a 

81 Law of January 23, 1829 (Session Laws of Missouri, 1828, ch. i, 
sec. 1). The slaves of estates in probate or of minor orphans were 
to be hired to the highest bidder once each year at the court house 
door where the administrator or guardian resided, unless the court 
otherwise directed. The former was to give twenty days' notice of 
such hiring of slaves at the court house and at two other places in 
the county. No private hiring of slaves belonging to such estates 
or such minors was allowed, the penalty being five hundred dollars. 
An example of one of these published notices is found in the Farm- 
ers' and Mechanics' Advocate (St. Louis) of February 20, 1834: 
" By order of the Court there will be hired to the highest bidder, for 
the term of one year, at the court house door in the City of St. 
Louis, on the first day of March next, Two Negro Men, belonging 
to the estate of William C. Fugate, deceased. Bond and approved 
security will be required for the payment of the hire and rede- 
livery of said negroes. Isaac J. Price, Admr." But slaves were pri- 
vately hired as the law provided. The probate court of Saline 
County on February 5, i860, "ordered that McDowell, Poage and 
Maupin as administrators of the Estate of Samuel M. McDowell, 
deceased, hire publically or privately the slaves belonging to said 
Estate" (MS. Probate Records, Saline County, Book G [1859-66], 

p. m). 

82 The following advertisements show that in the early days slaves 
were at times hired by the month : " Wanted, To hire, by the month 
an industrious negro man" (Missouri Herald, September 4, 1819) ; 
"A NEGRO WOMAN . . . may be hired at $6 per month" (Mis- 
souri Intelligencer, November 25, 1823). R. H. Williams, en route 
from Virginia to Kansas in 1855, hired his three slaves m St. Louis 
by the week (With the Border Ruffians, p. 64). 

83 The following advertisement is found in the St. Louis Enquirer 
of May 24, 1820 : " FOR SALE, Four negroes for the term of four 
years each, from the 1st of August next. . . . Also two others for 
2 years each. . . . W. Brown." 



30 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

coat and a pair of trousers in the winter, and two pairs of 
trousers the second summer. 84 

The yearly hiring price of the slave was of course de- 
pendent on the nature of the work and on the character, 
sex, age, and individual strength of the negro. 85 The rate 
steadily increased till the Civil War. A number of figures 
were obtained by the author from old Missouri masters and 
slaves which are very similar to those obtained from the 
county records and other sources. 86 The market rate for 

84 " Uncle " Peter Clay of Liberty. He adds that the slave was 
clever enough to go to his new employer in his worst rags in order 
to get the full quota of clothing. 

85 The hirer often demanded good references as to the slave. 
This form of advertisement is frequently found : " WANTED TO 
HIRE, A healthy, sober, and industrious Negro Woman . . . one 
that can be well recommended" (Teffersonian Republican, May 28, 
1836). 

86 Mr. Hunter B. Jenkins of St. Louis, formerly of Lexington, 
said : " Many slaves received from $15 to $20 per month and board 
and clothing as farm hands, and from $20 to $30 as roustabouts on 
the river." Major G. W. Lankford of Marshall stated that most 
slaves hired for from $150 to $250 as hemp hands, many bringing 
$200. " Good livery-stable hands brought from $200 to $250," said 
Captain J. A. Wilson of Lexington. " Mechanics received more. I 
knew a good carpenter whose master received $250 for his hire." 
Peter Clay of Liberty stated that his master hired him out as a 
general field hand at $175 per year. "Aunt" Melinda Sanders of 
Platte City said : " I was hired out by my mistress, a widow woman, 
for one dollar a week and had to keep house for a family of seven. 
I was fed very badly." Professor Peter H. Clark, formerly of the 
Colored High School of St. Louis, said he knew of slaves who paid 
their masters several hundred dollars for the master's share of the 
yearly hire. General Haskell of Kansas says that he knew a trusty 
negro who returned to his Missouri master with $150 in gold as the 
latter's share of his earnings, and that this was an " exceptional but 
not an isolated case" (p. 32). The Reverenl William G. Eliot in 
an article of unknown date wrote that in St. Louis " prime male 
house servants received $150 per year and females $75 per year and 
in the country slave labor appeared equally unprofitable, $100 on an 
average being received by the owner for the hire of his best field 
hands," while free labor could be had for $10 per month and no 
clothing (C. C. Eliot, William Greenleaf Eliot, p. 142). In the His- 
tory of Lewis, Clark, Knox, and Scotland Counties it is stated that 
in northeast Missouri a good man hired for about $250 a year with 
specified clothes, food, and so on. " In case of sickness his owner 
usually took care of him and paid the doctor's bills" (p. 630). In 
many cases, however, the hirer paid the bills in case the slave was 
sick, unless the illness was more or less permanent. Mr. William 
M. Paxton, the historian of Platte County, now in his ninety-sixth 
year (1913), was interviewed by the author at his home in Platte 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 3 I 

slave hire is difficult to discover for a certain period because 
of the individual differences in the negroes. However, two 
papers found in the probate records of St. Louis show the 
ratio between the hiring price and the value in the year 
1838. 87 The slaves were all men but one. Their ages, 
value, and annual hire were as follows : — 



Name 


Age 


Value 


Year'; 
Hire 


Solomon 


22 


$800 


$119 


Antoine 


25 


800 


96 


Tohn 


23 


GOO 


90 


Bill 


16 


60O 


87 


Henry 


35 


300 


47 


Edd 


12 


350 


45 


Frank 


14 


350 


45 


Lucy 


10 


300 


15 



For the closing years of the slavery period when negroes 
were considered gilt-edged property there are the following 
comparisons of the value and the hiring price in the rich 
river county of Boone. In 1858 a body of slaves were 
valued and hired as follows by the probate court of that 
county : — ss 







Year's 


Name 


Value 


Hire 


Men — Charles 


$1200 


$194.00 


Jack 


I200 


I9O.OO 


Sam 


I IOO 


I76.OO 


Stephen 


1200 


150.00 


Bob 


IOOO 


132.50 


Joe 


IOOO 


120.00 


Fil 


8fJO 


105.00 


Elijah 


800 


101.00 


Ben 


600 


22.00 


Women — Palma 


$ 900 


$ 83.OO 


Lizzy 


300 


52.00 


Ann, and child 


500 


46.OO 


Amy, and child 


IOOO 


41.00 



City on August 1, 1912. In describing the hemp culture he stated 
that he remembered that $200 was frequently paid as the annual hire 
of a good hemp-breaking negro. 

87 These figures are taken from papers of the Estate of Thomas 
Withington. The ages and values are given in the Bill of Appraise- 
ment, filed June 14, 1838, p. 12. The hiring price is found in the Bill 
of Sale, pp. 14-15 (MS. Probate Records, St. Louis, Estate no. 1374). 

88 MS. Probate Records, Boone County, Inventories, Appraise- 
ments, and Sales, Book B, pp. 87-89. Appraisement filed December 
30, and Sale Bill December 31, 1858. 



32 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 







Year's 


Name 


Value 


Hire 


Mary, and child 


IIOO 


35-00 


Nancy 


500 


l8.00 


Alsey 


550 


l6.00 


Milly 


500 


10.00 


Lucy, and Servis, her husband. 


10 


•50 



From the above figures it will be seen that in the case of 
the men the rate was between one seventh and one eighth 
of the valuation, or about fourteen per cent. The hire of 
the women averaged only about one sixteenth of the value. 
This difference was caused largely by the fact that in three 
cases the children were taken with the mothers ; these, unless 
they were fairly large, would be an expense to the hirer and 
would demand some of the mother's time. Roughly, the 
hiring price was in proportion to the valuation. Fourteen 
per cent hardly seems an excessive rate for a developing 
country famous for its fertility when we consider that the 
owner must subtract taxes, wear and tear, risk of escape, 
and permanent injury if received through no fault of the 
hirer. He had also to figure on the deterioration in value 
and the approaching old age of the slave, whom he must 
support when past working. 89 

In Saline County a slave named Cooper was hired for 
$231 in 1857, the following year for $200, and again in 
1859 for $i9o. 80 Cooper was a valuable negro and Saline a 
rich county. 91 For the above three years Cooper's hire 

89 The owner's risk by disease is well illustrated by the following 
letter : " Sister . . . desires me to say that Dr. Johnson was to see 
the Negro Woman Elinzra & pronounces her not worth a Cent as 
she is deformed & diseased in several ways & thinks it will in all 
probability terminate in Consumption" (MS. J. L. Talbot to S. P. 
Sublette, dated St. Louis, October 1, 1854, Sublette Papers). The 
present writer looked into the question of the insurance of slave 
property. Several of the oldest insurance men of St. Louis remem- 
bered nothing of the kind. Mr. Martin J. Hubble of Springfield, 
who well remembers slavery days and who has long been in the 
insurance business, said, " No, slaves were never insured." But the 
contract quoted on page 221 of this study implies that it might have 
been done at times. 

90 Estate of Jas. D. Garnett, MS. Probate Records, Saline County, 
Inventories, Appraisements, and Sales, Book 1, p. 606, filed April 
5, i860. 

91 Major G. W. Lankford of Marshall stated that Cooper was a 
valuable negro. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 33 

averaged $207, or $17.25 per month. In comparison with 
this figure, it is found that in the adjoining river county of 
Cooper the average monthly wage of a white farm hand 
with board was $10 in 1849-50, 92 and in St. Genevieve the 
average was $12 a month in 1859-60. 93 Even admitting 
that the above-named slave lived in a very wealthy county, 
his hire seems liberal, especially so when it is remembered 
that in addition he was fed, clothed, and given medical at- 
tention. Except for the ever-threatening danger of escape, 
the western Missouri slaveholder must have had a good 
investment in the ownership of a slave like Cooper from 
his fifteenth to his fiftieth year, yet the cost of his rais- 
ing must have been heavy. The risk of absconding, injury, 
and future decrepitude of a slave were stalking menaces 
which the easy-going slaveholder could not escape but ap- 
parently did not always consider. 

The hiring price of female slaves has been referred to in 
the preceding pages. It was considerably less than that of 
the men because their labor was less productive. The loss 
of time resulting from the birth and rearing of children was 
also an item which was not overlooked. The German 
traveller, Graf Adelbert Baudissin, claims that in the early 
fifties a negress was worth from $500 to $700 and was hired 
for from $40 to $6o. 94 In some cases a high price was 
paid for a negress who was competent. Just before the 
Civil War a former citizen of Franklin County hired a 
negress as cook and housekeeper for $i5o. 95 

92 MS. Census Enumeration, Cooper County, 1850, Schedule no. 6. 

93 MS. Census Enumeration, St. Genevieve County, i860, Sched- 
ule no. 6. 

94 Der Anziedler in Missouri Staat, p. 56. His book was published 
in 1854. A woman was hired in 1834 for $42 (Blanton v. Knox, 
3 Mo., 241), and one in 1839 for $40 (MS. Probate Records, St. 
Louis, Estate of John W. Reel, Estate no. 1359. paper filed March 
II, 1840). As late as August, 1863, a negress was hired in Lafayette 
County for $40 (MS. Probate Records, Lafayette County, Estate of 
Jas. H. Crooks, Inventories, Book D, filed August 3, 1863). From 
the context it appears that in case the slave escaped during the 
turmoil of the War the time was to be deducted. 

95 Mr. George F. Shaw of Independence, formerly of Franklin 
County. 



34 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

A contract for slave hire was protected on both sides by 
the law. If a slave was hired for a year and died within 
that time, the hirer was bound for payment only to the time 
of the slave's death. 96 If the hirer caused the slave's death 
by his cruelty, he was responsible to the owner for the value 
of the negro and was subject to criminal prosecution as 
well. 97 Should a slave, hired without the owner's consent, 
be killed while so employed, though by no act of the em- 
ployer, the latter was responsible. 98 It was held as early 
as 1827 that " the law is that if the . . . covenanter disable 
himself by his own act [in injuring a hired slave] to perform 
his covenant . . . this shall not excuse his own performance " 
to pay for the hire of the slave. 99 The sickness of a hired 
slave might cause trouble. One case was found in which 
the hirer attempted to return the negro to the owner before 
the contract had expired. 100 

The hirer was bound to take reasonable care that the slave 
did not escape. He was honestly to endeavor to recapture 
a fugitive whom he had hired. 101 Because of the precarious 
position of Missouri's slave property the owner took con- 
siderable risk in hiring his negro as a hand on a Mississippi 
River boat. 102 Concerning such a case the supreme court 
in 1847 instructed a jury as follows : " The jury is authorized 

96 Dudgeon v. Teas. 9 Mo., 867. A statement of this case as it 
appeared before the Warren County circuit court can be found in 
the Jefferson Inquirer (Jefferson City) of October 2, 1845. The 
supreme court confirmed the lower decision. 

97 Adams v. Childers, 10 Mo., 778. 

98 Garneau v. Herthel, 15 Mo., 191. 

99 Mann v. Trabue, 1 Mo., 508. 

100 On April 4, 1853, Theodore La Beaume wrote Solomon J. 
Sublette : " Your boy George that I hired last January at the Court- 
house, I believe has strong Symptoms of Consumption and if not 
taken from hard work will not last long. ... So says the Doctor, 
as long as he is exposed. I am willing to give him up, and I think 
that it will be to your advantage as well as his to have him under 
your immediate charge" (MS. Sublette Papers). 

101 Elliott v. Robb, 6 Mo., 323. This opinion was also followed in 
Perkins v. Reeds, Admr., 8 Mo., 33, and in Beardslee et al. v. Perry 
et al., 14 Mo., 88. In case a slave committed a crime while in the 
service of the hirer " the owner and not the temporary master of 
the slave ... is the proper person to pay the costs of conviction " 
(Reed v. Circuit Court of Howard County, 6 Mo., 44). 

102 Merrick, p. 64. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 35 

to consider the peculiar circumstances of the country, the 
vicinity of the city of St. Louis . . . and Missouri to free 
States, the difficulties of retaining negroes in slavery, the 
age, character, sagacity, color and general appearance of 

the negro Where a slave is hired as a boathand, we must 

presume that the owner is fully aware, that every facility for 
escape is afforded by the very nature of the service. . . . 
Does the owner expect, that in case his slave escapes, whilst 
the boat is . . . putting off freight . . . the captain and 
crew will relinquish the boat, or abandon the trip for the 
purpose of hunting up the slave?" 103 

There were apparently many careless masters and numer- 
ous wandering slaves in the State at times, despite the laws 
passed to prevent the practice mentioned above. The Code 
of 1804 provided that an owner should be fined thirty 
dollars for allowing his slave to go about as a free man and 
hire himself out. If a negro was permitted to so hire his 
own time, he could be sold by the sheriff at the next term 
of court, after being advertised at the court-house for 
twenty days. 104 The Code of 1835 fined an owner from 
twenty to one hundred dollars for hiring a slave to another 
slave or suffering him to go at large and hire himself out. 105 

Cases occurred where persons were fined for violating 
this law. In i860 one R. Schooling was fined twenty dollars, 
in Boone County for " hiring a slave his time." 106 The 
following entry appears in the circuit court records of St. 
Louis for 1832 : " Sam a Negro Man Slave who is in the 
custody of the sheriff on charge of having hired himself out 
contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, 
being now brought before the court ... it is ordered by the 
court that therefore said slave Sam be discharged from 
custody on the charge aforesaid and that the court do 
further order that Smith the person in whose service he 

103 Perry and Van Houten v. Beardsley and Wife, 10 Mo., 568. 

104 Territorial Laws of Missouri, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 18, 19. 

105 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581, art. i, sec. 7; reenacted February 
IS, 1841 (Session Laws, 1840, p. 146, sec. 1). 

™ 6 The State v. R. Schooling, MS. Records, Boone County Cir- 
cuit Court, Book H, p. 169. 



36 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

now is do pay the costs of this proceeding and those in- 
curred in consequence of his arrest and imprisonment." 107 

From an early date this law seems to have been hard to 
enforce. The press and the public continually complained 
of its non-enforcement to the detriment of the negro and the 
danger of the community. 108 A St. Louis editorial of 1824, 
after quoting the law, explains the real or supposed serious- 
ness of this custom as follows : " The reasons for this enact- 
ment are obvious : and the reasons resulting from the neglect 
to enforce it are already severely felt. Slaves hiring their 
own time of their masters, as is the case in numerous in- 
stances, take upon themselves at once the airs of freemen 
and often resort to very illicit modes to meet their monthly 
payments. . . . They become unsteady and vicious, and 
corrupt their associates, and perhaps at length resort to 
theft as an easier mode of paying their masters. This prac- 
tice, is in fact, one principal source of the irregularity and 
crimes of slaves in this place." 109 

At a mass-meeting of St. Louis citizens, held October 31, 
1835, there were drawn up a series of resolutions which 
show the magnitude of the problem as contemporaries 
viewed it. " Resolved, That no slave should be suffered to 
live or dwell in this city or county at any place other than 
the same lot or parcel of ground on which his owner . . . 
shall reside. . . . Resolved, That this meeting view the prac- 
tice of slaveholders hiring their slaves their time, one of 
the greatest evils that can be inflicted on a community in a 
slave State." The committee on abolition was given power 
to see that the practice was stopped. 110 A Columbia 



107 MS. Records, St. Louis Circuit Court, vol. 6, p. 301. 

108 Governor Dunklin in his message to the General Assembly of 
November 8, 1834, said : " I lay before you a presentation of a grand 
jury in the County of St. Louis. So much of it as relates to free 
negroes; . . . and slaves hiring their time of their owners, is enti- 
tled to your consideration" (Senate Journal [Journals of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of Missouri, House and Senate Journals], 8th Ass., 
1st Sess., p. 20). Perhaps this advice resulted in the above provisions 
in the Code of 1835. 

109 Republican, July 19, 1824. 

110 Daily Evening Herald and Commercial Advertiser (St. Louis), 
November 3, 1835, resolutions no. io, 18, 19. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 37 

editor in 1856 complained that the law covering this point 
was " frequently violated." Its enforcement was de- 
manded. 111 

It is quite evident that the Missouri slave-master indulged 
his bondman in many ways. It would have been a hardship 
to the negro to have hired him at a distance from his family. 
The hirer often allowed him to return to his owner's planta- 
tion at night, but if working at some distance the slave was 
able to return home only over Sunday. 112 A traveller states 
that a slave was often given a horse on which to visit his 
family and in some cases his prospective wife. 113 These 
favors could but have made the lot of the slave easier and 
his contentment and faithfulness more assured. 

No question concerning slavery is more difficult to handle 
than the value of slave property. The selling price of 
individual negroes and of lots of them can be found in 
the county records and in the newspapers, but to gen- 
eralize on these figures for any one period or to compare 
values in different periods would be most misleading. For 
example, if a male slave twenty years of age sold for $500 
in 1820 and another of the same age sold for $1400 in i860, 
little is learned. The first negro may have been less healthy, 
less tractable, and less intelligent than the other. There- 
fore the difference of $900 could not represent the general 
rise in prices or the increased value of slave labor. To 
illustrate this point concretely, two slaves were sold in Ray 
County in 1854; both were twenty-six years of age, yet one 
brought $1295 and the other $670. 114 This shows how 
unsafe it is to compare specific sales. 

On the other hand, by comparing the prices brought by 
bodies of negroes about the same age and in the same 

111 Weekly Missouri State Journal (Columbia), February 7, 1856. 
The charter of Carondelet of 1851 empowered the city council " to 
impose fines, penalties and forfeitures on the owners and masters of 
slaves suffered to go at large or to act or deal as free persons" 
(pamphlet, art. v, sec. 21). 

112 Statement of Mr. Hunter B. Jenkins of St. Louis. 

113 Baudissin, p. 56. 

114 Notice of the sale of the slaves of the estate of Thomas Reeves 
(Richmond Weekly Mirror, January 5, 1855). 



38 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

locality an approximately sound conclusion is reached. In 
general it can be said that there was a gradual rise in slave 
values up to the Civil War. It was exceptional indeed when 
a negro brought over $500 before 1830. 115 A prime male 
servant from eighteen to thirty-five years of age was in 
this early period worth from $450 to $500, and a woman 
about a fourth less. 116 When Auguste Chouteau's negroes 
were appraised in 1829, the eleven men among them who 
were between the ages of sixteen and thirty-five averaged 
$486.35 each, the highest being valued at $500 and the 
lowest at $300. The eleven women between the ages of 
sixteen and thirty-nine averaged $316.35, the highest valua- 
tion being $350 and the lowest $I30. 117 

From the third decade of the century on there is an in- 
crease in value. Men brought considerably more by the late 
thirties. In 1838 prime hands were bringing from $600 to 

115 The following representative examples of slave values of the 
territorial period are found in the St. Louis probate records. In the 
will of the Widow Quenel of March, 1805, four slaves are listed 
and valued as follows : two women at 376 and 641 " piastres " re- 
spectively; Sophie, aged 13, at 900 piastres, Alexander, aged 5, at 
300, and a cow at 10 piastres. If the latter was a normal animal, 
some idea may be had of the comparative value of the negroes (MS. 
Probate Records, Estate no. 7). Joseph Robidoux's estate was pro- 
bated in August, 1810. His slaves were listed as follows: Felecite 
with child at breast, 300 piastres, her daughter 8 years old, 150, a 
girl of 6, 125, and " Une autre petite Negrette" 100 (ibid., Estate 
no. 59). In 1817 the following values were attached to slaves in 
Cape Girardeau County : two men, $900, woman and two children, 
$800, woman and child, $550, woman, $350, and five men, $2700 (MS. 
Probate Records, Cape Girardeau County, Appraisement of the Es- 
tate of Elijah Betty, filed June 2, 1817, Estate no. 628). H. R. 
Schoolcraft, writing in 1820 or 1821, stated that a good slave sold 
for $600 in Missouri (Travels in the Central Portion of the Missis- 
sippi Valley, p. 232). 

116 In 1830 the following values were given in St. Louis: Charles, 
aged 32, $450 ; Anthony, aged 30, $400 ; Antrim, aged 24, $450 ; Allen, 
aged 24, $500 (Estate of John C. Sullivan, MS. Probate Records, St. 
Louis, Estate no. 882, Appraisement filed October 9, 1830). The 
appraisement values correspond very closely with the amounts re- 
ceived at the sales; in some cases slaves sold for more than the 
appraisal value and in others Tor less. In Pike County in 1835 
a negress aged 22 years and her three children aged 4 years, 3 years, 
and 3 months respectively, sold for $650 (MS. receipt of sale, dated 
May 2, 1835, Dougherty Papers). 

117 MS. Copy of Appraisement, dated May II, 1829, in the Mis- 
souri Historical Society. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 39 

$900 in St. Louis. 118 Up to 1840 female slaves were worth 
from $300 to $350 when men were bringing from $500 to 
$600. Children from two to five years of age were sold 
for from $100 to $200. In St. Louis, Thomas Withington's 
slave children were appraised as follows in 1838: Frank, 
aged 14, $350; Lucy, aged 10, $300; Sophia, aged 5, $200; 
Charlotte, aged 3, $100; Harriet and Jane, aged 2, $75 and 
$100 respectively. 119 In the same year W. H. Ashley's 
women and children were valued as follows: Berril (boy), 
aged 12, $350; Celia, aged 9, $250; Lucy, aged 9, $250; 
Catherine, aged 7, $200; and Betsy, aged 30, and her infant 
son, $5oo. 120 The above are representative prices for the 
forties. At Marshall, Thomas Smith's women and children 
were valued as follows in 1844: Harriet, aged 32, $300; 
Patsy, aged 22, $350; Wilson, aged 8, $200; Lizzy, aged 3, 
$125; Betty, aged 2, $150; Emiline, aged 1, $75, and Leah, 
aged ten months, $75. m 

The golden age of slave values is the fifties. The prime 
male slave of Missouri in i860 was worth about $1300 and 
the negresses about $1000. The fabled $2000 negro is 
found more often in story than in record. "Uncle" Eph 
Sanders of Platte City, still a very intelligent and powerful 
negro, claims that his master refused $2000 for him in 1859 
when he was twenty-three. 122 Contemporaries, however, 
place the normal limit at about $1500. Mr. Paxton says that 
stout hemp-breaking negroes " sold readily for from $1200 

118 The estate of Thomas Withington received $800 each for two 
men, aged 22 and 25. and $600 each for one 23 and one 16 (MS. 
Probate Records, St. Louis, Estate no. 1374, Bill of Sale dated June 
14, 1838). This same year a man of 21 brought $650, and one 35 
sold for $900 (ibid., Estate of W. H. Ashley, Estate no. 1377. Inven- 
tory and Appraisement, filed June 20, 1838). In 1844 in Saline 
County good hands sold at about the same figures. Thomas A. 
Smith's blacks were valued as follows: $500 each for three men, 
$550 each for two others, and one for $600 (MS. Probate Records, 
Saline County, Box no. 248, Inventory and Appraisement filed No- 
vember 11, 1844). 

119 MS. Probate Records, St. Louis, Estate no. 1374- 

120 Ibid., no. 1377- 

121 MS. Probate Records, Saline County, Box no. 248. 

122 Mr. Hunter B. Jenkins of St. Louis claims that in the late 
fifties a good sound black brought from $1500 to $2000. 



40 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

to $1400 " in the heyday of Platte County hemp culture. 123 
Dr. John Doy asserts that one sold in Weston in the late 
fifties for $i8oo. 124 

Although the above figures may be exceptional, there is 
plenty of evidence that negroes were very valuable in these 
years. In 1854 the slaves of Thomas Reeves were sold in 
Richmond for fine prices. The ages and prices of these 
negroes were as follows : — 125 

Sex Age Value 

Man 23 $1440 

Man 26 1295 

Man 23 1245 

Man 40 1 1 15 

Man 31 911 

Man 33 904 

Man 26 670 

Man 58 115 

Boy 13 851 

Boy 14 825 

Boy 1 1 795 

Boy 13 775 

Woman 49 510 

Girl 12 942 

123 P. 37- G. B. Merrick says that while he was on the Mississippi 
as a boatman in the late fifties, a male slave sold for from $800 to 
$1500 (p. 64). At the Lexington Pro-Slavery Convention of 1855 
President James Shannon of the State University declared that the 
average Missouri slave was worth $600, and that field hands " will 
now readily sell for $1,200" (Proceedings of the Convention, p. 7). 

124 P. 59- 

125 Richmond Weekly Mirror, January 5, 1855. One thousand to 
$1200 seems to have been the common figure for good men in the 
late fifties. In 1858 in Boone County four men were valued at $1200 
each, one at $1100, and another at $1000. Two women were rated 
at $900 each (MS. Probate Records, Boone County, Inventories, 
Appraisements, and Sales, Book B, pp. 87-88, filed December 30, 
1858). The following year in Greene County two men were valued 
at $1100 each (MS. Probate Records, Greene County, Inventories and 
Appraisements, Book A, p. 31, Estate of Jonathan Carthel, filed 
August 4, 1859). In i860 in the same county a man was rated at 
$1200 (ibid., p. 160, Estate of Jacob Rodenkamer, filed May 18, i860). 
The same year a woman was sold for $1100, and two men for $1150 
and $1260 respectively (ibid., p. 202, Estate of James Boaldin, Sale 
Bill not dated). In Henry County in i860 a man aged 29 was valued 
at $1250, a girl of 12 at $1000, one of 15 at the same figure, a girl 
of 9 and two boys of 7 at $800 each. A bov 5 years old was valued 
at $600 (MS. Probate Records, Henry County, Inventories, Appraise- 
ments, and Sales, p. 126, Estate of A. Embry, filed September 26, 
i860). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 41 

In the same issue of the Richmond Weekly Mirror which 
published the above items there is an account of the dis- 
posal of the negroes of Charity Creason, which were sold 
on January i, 1855. They brought the following prices: a 
man aged 23, $1439; another aged 38, $1031; a woman 
aged 26 and her 18-months child, $1102.50; a girl of 3, 
$400, and a woman of 59, $1. 

During the middle and late fifties all classes of negroes 
were priced high. In 1856 a lot of children was sold as 
follows: a boy of nine for $550, one of seven for $500, and 
another of five for $300. 126 A Saline County inventory of 
1859 shows what good prices negroes in general were com- 
manding in the closing years of the slavery regime : — 127 



Name 




Age 




Value 


Henry 




17 




$1300 


Daniel 




36 




1200 


George 




13 




950 


Stephen 




8 




650 


.Addison 




8 




550 


Thomas 




5 




440 


Ellen 




20 




1300 


Mary, 21, and child of 14 mos. 






1250 


Susan 




15 




IISO 


Eliza 




17 




IOSO 


Francis 




10 




800 


Minerva 




12 




800 


Marie, 35, and son, 18 mos. 








775 


Delia 




46 




500 


Marie 




7 




625 


Julia 




4 




400 


a girl 




6 mos. 




50 


Top prices are found in 


Boone County, 


where 


in i860 



126 Estate of Benjamin Moberly (MS. Probate Records, Saline 
County, Appraisements, and Sales, 1855-61, vol. i, pp. 118-119, filed 
January 26, 1856). At Hannibal on April 15, 1855, a girl of 9 sold 
for $450, and a boy of 4 for $321 (Weekly Pilot [St. Louis], April 
21, 1855). 

127 Estate of H. Eustace (MS. Probate Records, Saline County, 
Appraisements, and Sales, 1855-61, vol. i, pp. 602-603, filed April 4, 
1859). In this same year two men (age not given) were appraised 
in Saline County at $1300 each, and another at $1100. A mother and 
child were together valued at $1100 (ibid., Estate of Samuel M. 
McDonald, Box no. 169, Inventory filed November 20, 1859). In 
these records there are many similar valuations. 



42 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

George W. Gordon's blacks received the following valua- 
tions : — 12S 

Name Age Value 

Lou 25 $1500 

Horace 30 1500 

Charles 34 1600 

Roger 36 1500 

It appears from the foregoing pages that the highest 
official value placed upon a negro man was $1600, and upon 
a woman $1300. A difficulty in rinding the exact price of 
slave women is that the small children are often included 
with them. 

When the Civil War opened and escapes became more 
numerous, the values of slave property began to decline. 
Compared with the above figures there is the following 
appraisement of the estate of Lawson Calvin of Saline 
County, filed July 11, 1861, after the War had engulfed the 
State in a torrent of strife : — 129 

Name Age Value 

Lewis 18 $800 

George 12 600 

Narcissa 16 600 

Lewis 47 500 

Henry 7 300 

Mag 40 275 

Nevertheless, it is surprising to note how slave values 
persisted during the Civil War. The prices kept fairly high, 
as the probate records of Lafayette, Missouri's greatest slave 
county, bear witness. Two men were actually appraised at 
$1100 and $800 respectively, and a woman at $1000, in 
November, 1861. 130 In January, 1862, one woman was in- 

128 MS. Probate Records, Boone County, Inventories, Appraise- 
ments, and Sales, Book B, p. 287, filed December 25, i860). In 1859 
William W. Hudson's negro named Beverley, aged 29, was valued 
at $1500, three other men at $1200 each, and four men at $1000 each 
(ibid., p. 170, filed September 12, 1859). 

129 MS. Probate Records, Saline County, Inventories, and Appraise- 
ments, 1855-61, vol. i, p. 677. The appraisement of the estate of 
Elizabeth Huff of July 7, 1861, bears similar testimony to the effect 
of the War on slave property (ibid.). 

130 The Estate of Colonel John Brown, Appraisement filed Novem- 
ber 18, 1861 (MS. Probate Records, Lafayette County, Inventories, 
Appraisements, and Sales, vol. ii, p. 24). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 43 

ventoried at $650 and another at $550, and a boy of seven- 
teen at $650, while one of eleven was rated at $5oo. 131 By 
the last of July, 1863, the price had further decreased, but 
although Gettysburg had been fought and Missouri was 
overrun by bushwhackers, values did not fall as much as 
one conversant with conditions in the border States might 
expect. In the above month two women aged twenty-three 
and sixteen were appraised at $300 each, and a boy of eigh- 
teen at $400. 132 Slave property was not merely appraised 
this late. On June 3, 1863, the negroes of Samuel F. Taylor 
of Lafayette County were actually sold as follows : Amanda, 
$380; Milky (girl), $370; Jack, $305; Georgetta, $300; 
William, $250; Eunis, $200; and Sam, $200. 133 There was 
an appraisal of an estate in Lafayette County made on 
October 2, 1863, but the slaves were not assigned value. 134 
Over a month later, on November 5, 1863, negroes were still 
appraised, but this is the last official valuation of slave 
property in Lafayette County records. On that date a 
"boy" named Charles was appraised at $300 and a girl of 
fourteen at $2co. 135 

The total value of slave property is of course very diffi- 
cult to estimate. Contemporaries were far from agreeing 
on this point. For instance, in 1854 John Hogan of the 
Republican, in an article which was intended to boom St. 
Louis and Missouri, placed the average value at $300. 13 " 
In contrast with this low estimate, the " Address to the 
People of the United States," prepared by a committee of 
the Lexington Pro-Slavery Convention of 1855, valued the 
50,000 slaves of western Missouri at $25,000,000, or $500 

131 Estate of John D. Bailey, Inventory filed January 2, 1862 (ibid., 
p. 18). 

132 Estate of Randell Latamer, Appraisement filed July (?), 1863 
(ibid., p. 261). 

133 Estate of Samuel F. Taylor, Bill of Sale filed June 6, 1863 
(MS. Probate Records, Lafayette County, Inventories and Sale Bills, 
Book D, p. 69). Several slaves appraised in the early part of this 
year are found in these records. The values show a gradual decline. 

134 Estate of Western Woollard (MS. Probate Records, Lafayette 
County, Inventories, Appraisements, and Sales, vol. ii, p. 267). 

135 Estate of F. U. Talliferro (ibid., p. 262). 

136 Thoughts about the City of St. Louis . . . pamphlet, p. 65. 



44 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

each. 137 Governor Jackson in his inaugural address of 
January 3, 1861, estimated the 114,931 slaves of the State 
to be worth $ioo,ooo,ooo. 138 Of course the governor was 
speaking in general terms, but his average would be nearly 
$700 a slave. 

The above figures are in excess of those given by the 
county assessors of the period. Tax values are usually 
considered lower than market values. The Jackson County 
tax average for i860 was $438.05 per slave, 139 and that of 
Boone County $372.30. 140 The average in Pike County in 
1859 was $434.78. 141 In 1856 in Buchanan County it was 
$45o.92, 142 and that of the 170 slaves of its county seat, St. 
Joseph, was $434.7o. 143 Evidently the assessors of the 
various counties had no uniform standard in rating negroes, 
but despite the fact that the figures vary they show at least 
that slave property was increasing in price. In 1828 the 
239 slaves of Lafayette County were taxed at an average of 
$249.68. 144 This is at least a third less than the average 
rate in the counties above mentioned in the years around 
i860. At the same time, in comparing these values the 
decreasing purchasing power of money should be taken into 
consideration. 

A very bitter experience which the slave might at any 
time be forced to undergo was his removal to a strange 
region far from his wife or children or old associations. 



137 Proceedings of the Convention, p. 3, or in the Weekly Missouri 
Sentinel (Columbia), October 5, 1855. This address was signed by 
W. B. Napton, Governor Sterling Price, and others. 

138 Pamphlet, p. 7. 

139 MS. Tax Book, Jackson County, i860: 3316 slaves, tax value 
$1,452,591. 

140 MS. Tax Book, Boone County, i860: 4354 slaves, tax value 
$1,721,000. 

141 MS. Tax Book, Pike County, 1859: 3733 slaves, tax value 
$1,623,085. 

142 MS. Tax Book, Buchanan County, 1856: 1534 slaves, tax value 
$691,825. 

143 M. H. Nash, city registrar, valued the 170 slaves of the town 
at $73,900 (St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, September 7, 1855). 

144 The History of Lafayette County (St. Louis, 1881), p. 306. 
The total valuation was $59,665, as copied by the author of the above 
work from the tax book. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 45 

This disruption of the negro family was entirely dependant 
upon the humanity of the individual owner. The sale of 
the slave to be taken south was known in Missouri as in 
the other border States, but the Missourians deny that it was 
ever practised save where financial reverses, an excess of 
hands, or a chronic spirit of viciousness or of absconding on 
the part of the slave made it necessary. 145 Whether to 
mollify the new antislavery party which developed during 
the Compromise struggle, or whether through pure con- 
viction, the constitution of 1820 provided that the legislature 
might pass laws to prohibit the introduction of slaves into 
the State as " an article of commerce." 146 The provision 
was not taken seriously, and the General Assembly never 
acted upon the suggestion. 

The slave-trader is generally pictured as the brutal, con- 
scienceless, evil genius of the slavery system, detested even 
by those with whom he dealt. In Missouri he held no very 
enviable position. " Slavetraders and whiskey-sellers were 
equally hated by many," wrote one antislavery clergyman of 
St. Louis, 147 while another maintained that " large fortunes 
were made by the trade ; and some of those who made them 
were held as fit associates for the best men on ' change \" 148 
Dr. John Doy, the Kansas abolitionist, who had a personal 
grievance against the Missouri slaveholder, claimed that 
General Dorris, whom he described as a brutal dealer, was 
highly respected and " belonged to the aristocracy of Platte 
county." 149 Some of the slaveholders who were interviewed 

145 " I never heard of any Missourian who consciously raised 
slaves for the southern market. I feel sure it was never done," said 
Ex-Lieutenant-Governor R. A. Campbell of Bowling Green. Mr. 
Robert B. Price of Columbia denied that slaves were consciously 
bred for the southern market. Mr. J. W. Beatty of Mexico stated 
that there was a general feeling that the sale of negroes south was 
not right. Letters from old residents and slaveholders in all parts 
of the State deny that in Missouri, at least, slave breeding was ever 
engaged in as the antislavery people so often charged. The better 
classes at any rate frowned upon the practice. 

146 Art. iii, sec. 26. 

147 G. Anderson, The Story of a Border City During the Civil 
War, p. 171. 

148 W. G. Eliot, The Story of Archer Alexander, p. 100. 

149 P. 59- 



46 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

declared that the slave-trader and the saloon-keeper were 
tolerated as necessary evils, but that they were personally 
loathed and socially ostracised. Others, however, stated 
that it was a question of the individual trader, some being 
liked and some disliked. 150 

If the slave-trader was a hard man and detested, he at 
least had the satisfaction of knowing that the wisest and 
gentlest of men would be hated by many if plying his trade. 
The very nature of the business made it contemptible. If 
the Missouri system was as patriarchal and the tie between 
master and man as close as one is led to believe they were, 
the dealer who higgled and bargained even for the most un- 
ruly servant must have been disliked. This feeling would 
naturally be enhanced if financial reverses compelled the 
sale of family slaves. 151 



150 Captain J. A. Wilson of Lexington declared that slave-traders 
were considered worse than saloon-keepers, many of them about 
Lafayette County being gamblers. Mr. R. B. Price of Columbia 
stated that they were considered a questionable class in Boone 
County. Messrs. J. H. Sallee and J. W. Beatty of Mexico said that 
like any other class of people some were respected and some were 
detested. James Aull of Lexington, a prominent merchant and slave- 
holder, wrote in 1835: "A traffic in slaves we never could consent 
to embark in. No hope of gain could induce us to do it . . . we 
entirely and forever abandon the least share in the purchase of 
Negroes for Sale again" (MS. Aull to Siter, Price and Company 
of Philadelphia, June 15, Aull Papers). 

151 Many dealers were undoubtedly brutal men. An escaped Mis- 
souri slave later wrote that he was once hired to a dealer named 
Walker who collected Missouri slaves for the Gulf markets. This 
Walker forced a beautiful mulatto slave into concubinage, and years 
after sold her and his four children by her into slavery before mar- 
rying a white woman (W. B. Brown, Narrative of William B. Brown, 
A Fugitive Slave, p. 47). Once while on a negro buying expedition 
Walker was annoyed by the continual wailing of an infant in the 
gang. He seized it from the mother and ran into a wayside house 
with the child hanging by one leg. Despite the shrieks of the mother 
he gave it to a woman who thankfully received it. The gang then 
marched on to St. Louis (ibid., p. 49). John Doy says that while a 
prisoner in Platte City he met many brutal dealers. He thus de- 
scribes a slave gang : " At midnight Gen. Dorris, his son and assist- 
ants came to the jail and ordered the slaves to get ready to leave. 
As it was quite cold a pair of sox were drawn over the fists and 
wrists of the men, in place of mittens, they were then hand cuffed 
together in pairs and driven into the street, where they were formed 
in marching order behind the wagons containing the women and 
children — some of the former tied with rope when considered un- 
ruly" (p. 64). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 47 

In addition to the vicious, the runaway, and the slave of 
the financially depressed owner, there was a surplus from the 
natural increase, and consequently a considerable amount of 
business in the local exchange of negroes existed. Besides 
this there was the itinerant buyer for the southern markets. 
The smaller towns seem to have been regularly visited, while 
the larger centers had permanent dealers. There were two 
such in Lexington in 1861, but they are said to have had 
difficulty in getting sufficiently large gangs to make the busi- 
ness pay. 152 There was at least one permanent firm of 
dealers in St. Joseph in 1856. 153 John Doy asserts that 
while he was imprisoned in St. Joseph many negroes were 
shipped from there to Bernard Lynch, Corbin Thompson, 
and other large St. Louis buyers. 154 Columbia and Marshall 
were regularly visited, and Platte City had quite a thriving 
trade. 155 John R. White of Howard County was a wealthy 
planter of good repute who dealt in slaves. He lived on a 
farm of 1053 acres and was taxed with 46 negroes in 
1856. 156 The slave-trader, like the stock dealer, undoubtedly 
plied his trade wherever he could obtain his commodity. 

152 Captain J. A. Wilson has a map of Lexington executed by 
Joseph C. Jennings in 1861. It also contains a business directory in 
which are given two slave-traders, A. Alexander at the City Hotel, 
and R. J. White at the Laurel Hotel. The latter, Captain Wilson 
remembers, had a three-story building which he used as a slave pen, 
but found it difficult to collect many negroes. 

153 Wright and Carter, who were " located permanently at the 
Empire on Second Street" (St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, August 
15, 1856). 

154 P. 98. 

155 Mr. R. B. Price remembers that dealers came regularly to Co- 
lumbia. " Uncle " Henry Napper said that buyers came regularly 
to Marshall and picked up unruly slaves and those of hard-up mas- 
ters. John Doy wrote: "During our imprisonment [in Platte City 
in the late fifties] numbers of slaves were lodged in the jail by 
different traders, who were making up gangs to take or send to the 
south. Every slave when brought in, was ordered to strip naked, 
and was minutely examined for marks, which with the condition of 
the teeth and other details, were carefully noted by the trader in his 
memorandum-book. Many facts connected with these examinations 
were too disgusting to mention" (p. 59). J. G. Haskell states that 
unless unruly the slave had little danger of being sold to a distant 
market; "the oldest inhabitant remembers no such thing as a market 
auction block in western Missouri" (p. 31). 

156 MS. Tax Book, Howard County, 1856. Mr. George Carson of 
Fayette gave the above description of White's character. 



48 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

St. Louis became a considerable center for shipping gangs 
down the Mississippi. One Reuben Bartlett openly ad- 
vertised for negroes for the " Memphis and Louisiana 
Markets." 157 St. Louis was " fast becoming a slave 
market," wrote the Reverend W. G. Eliot, an antislavery 
clergyman, " and the supply was increasing with the demand. 
Often have I seen gangs of negroes handcuffed together, 
two and two, going through the open street like dumb cattle, 
on the way to the steamboat for the South. Large fortunes 
were made by the trade." 158 " I had to prepare the old 
slaves for the market," stated William Brown, a slave who 
worked for a trader on a boat from St. Louis south on the 
Mississippi ; " I was ordered to have the old men's whiskers 
shaved off, and the grey hairs plucked out where they were 
not too numerous, in which case he [the trader] had a 
preparation of blacking to color it, and with a blacking brush 
we put it on. . . . These slaves were then taught how old 
they were . . . after going through the blacking process they 
looked fifteen years younger." 159 In one issue of the Re- 
publican three firms, perhaps to imply great prosperity or 
to outdo one another, advertised for five hundred, one thou- 
sand, and twenty-five hundred slaves respectively. 160 

The St. Louis Directory of 1859 lists two " Slave 
Dealers " among the classified businesses. These were 
Bernard M. Lynch, 100 Locust Street, and Corbin Thomp- 
son, 3 South Sixth Street. 161 The former may be taken as a 

157 Republican, April 23, 1852. 

158 W. G. Eliot, p. 100. 

159 P. 43. Brown claims that " Missouri, though a comparatively 
new state is [1847] very much engaged in raising slaves to supply 
the southern market" (p. 81). On the other hand, the antislavery 
clergyman, Frederick Starr, said in 1853: "It is true that our papers 
are defiled by the advertisements of slave-traders, but they are few. 
Our Court-house witnesses the sale [of slaves] . . . and yet, this is 
emphatically a free city . . . most of the sales are for debt, or to 
close estates in accordance with the statute law" (Letter no. i, p. 8). 

160 Issue of January 7, 1854. 

161 Published by L. and A. Carr, p. 131. In the directory of 1859, 
published by R. V. Kennedy and Company, this same list appears, 
but Lynch's address is given as 109 Locust Street (p. 615). In a 
letter to S. P. Sublette of January 19, 1853, Lynch gave his address 
as 104 Locust Street (MS. Sublette Papers). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 49 

type of the great Missouri slave-dealer, who had his corre- 
spondents in the outlying parts of the State. His historic 
slave-pen in St. Louis was afterward used as a military 
prison. 162 Like other dealers, Lynch advertised his business 
in the newspapers, and posted in his office the rates and the 
conditions under which he handled negroes. This latter 
broadside placard read as follows: — 163 

" RULES 

No charge less than one Dollar 

All Negroes entrusted to my care for sale or otherwise 

must be at the Risk of the Owners, — 

A charge of ziVi cents will be made per Day for board of 

negroes & 2y 2 per cent on all Sales of Slaves, — ■ 

My usual care will be taken to avoid escape, or, accidents, 

but will not be made Responsible should they occur, — 

I only promise to give the same protection to other negroes 

that I do to my own, I bar all pretexts to want of diligence, 

These must be the acknowledged terms of all Negroes found 

in my care, as they will not be received on any other — 

As these Rules will be placed in my Office, so ' That all can 

see that will see.' The pretence of ignorance shall not be a 

plea. 

1st January 1858 B. M. Lynch 

No. 100 Locust St." 

Lynch could not have been the terror-inspiring ogre that 
the slave-dealer is usually pictured to be. On two different 
occasions slaves ran for refuge to his door. 164 Statistics of 
his business are also uncertain, for he was evidently clever 
enough to empty his " pen " on tax assessment day. In 1852 



162 An account of this building can be found in the Encyclopedia 
of Missouri History, vol. iii, p. 1333. There was also a slave-pen 
at Broadway and Clark Streets (J. L. Foy, " Slavery and Emanci- 
pation in Missouri," in ibid., vol. iv, p. 2079). Another was located 
at Fifth and Myrtle Streets (Anderson, p. 184). Lucy Delaney 
states that her mother was sold at an " auction-room on Main 
Street" (From the Darkness Cometh the Light, p. 22). Father D. 
S. Phelan of St. Louis remembers seeing slaves sold at the block on 
the northeast corner of Fifth and Elm Streets. 

163 Photo-facsimile copy in the Missouri Historical Society. 

364 On December 16, 1852, Lynch wrote Solomon P. Sublette, 
"Your negro woman Sarah came to the gate for admittance, she is 
here and will be held subject to your order, Very Respectfully B. M. 
Lynch" (MS. Sublette Papers). On January 19, 1853, Lynch wrote 
Sublette, " Your Negro woman with child rang about 4 oclock this 
morning for admittance and will be retained subject to your order" 
(ibid.). 



50 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Lynch was taxed on three slaves, 165 on the same number in 
1857, 166 and on four in i860. 167 

The slave-dealer had his own difficulties, and was perhaps 
a little prone to " horse-swapping " methods. His com- 
modity at times fell back upon his hands. " I received your 
letter yesterday," runs a note from John S. Bishop to S. P. 
Sublette in 1854, " in reference to the negro Girl I sold you. 
I will be on my way South by the last of October . . . and will 
take the negro and pay you the money — Or if you should 
see my Bro. G. B. Bishop ... he perhaps will pay you the 
money, and request him if he does to leave the girl at Mull- 
halls at the Stock Yards." 168 In February, 1855, Bishop 
again wrote Sublette : " I received yours of Feb 8 & was 
rather surprised . . . times is hard & money scares. I would 
of taken her as I was going South but do not want her now 
in hard times as Negroes have fallen. I bought her above 
here & Paid $600 for her as a Sound Negro & a very good 
one & will have My recorse where I bought her so you will 
know how to pro sede according to law." 169 

In some respects the slave-trade was unique. In the 
earlier days of the State the negro was frequently used as a 
medium of exchange in the purchase of land. 170 Some 
dealers bought both horses and slaves. 171 Others handled 

165 MS. Tax Book, St. Louis City, 1852, Second District, p. 117. 

166 MS. Tax Book, St. Louis City, 1857, vol. ii, p. 96. 

167 MS. Tax Book, St. Louis City, i860, Book L to O, p. 74. 

168 MS., dated Mexico, Missouri, September 26, 1854, Sublette 
Papers. 

169 MS., dated February 14, 1855, Sublette Papers. A guarantee 
of soundness for a slave sale reads as follows: "Franklin, County, 
Mo. March 1st, 1856. Received of Mr. Solomon P. Sublette Eight 
hundred and fifty dollars in full payment for a Negro Girl Eliza, 
aged seventeen years, the above described Negro girl I warrant 
sound in body and mind a Slave for life & free from all claims. . . . 
W. G. Nally" (ibid.). 

170 In the Farmers' and Mechanics' Advocate (St. Louis) of No- 
vember 21, 1833, is an example of this. Such advertisements are 
common. 

171 Advertisement of George Buchanan in the Republican of 
March 19, 1849. 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 5 I 

negroes, real estate, and loans. 172 In some cases slaves 
were taken on trial. 173 Some dealers sold negroes on com- 
mission, boarding them till sold at the owner's risk and at 
his expense. 174 

Many sorrows were undoubtedly borne by bereaved slave 
families and much misery was suffered by negroes at the 
hands of traders, but the master at times endeavored to 
make his departing bondman comfortable. In the Re- 
publican of January 7, 1854, may be read the following: 
" For Sale ; A good negro man, 32 years old, and not to be 
taken from the city." In the same issue a dealer offered 
to find homes for negroes within the city or the State if 
requested. These provisions were either to prevent the 
separation of slave families or to insure the master that his 
negro would not be sold south. 

The official negro auction block of St. Louis was the 
eastern door of the court-house. 175 Some of these sales, 
especially when negresses were on the block, may have been 
accompanied by obscene jibes and comment. The fre- 
quency of this is denied by contemporaries. " I have often," 
said a citizen of Lexington, " heard the auctioneer cry, ' A 
good sound wench, sixteen years old, good to cook, bake, 
iron, and work. Warranted a slave for life.' Crowds 
would flock to the court house to see the sight. I never 
heard or saw any indecency on such an occasion." 176 
William Brown stated that it was not uncommon in St. 

172 " I. B. Burbbayge, General Agent, and proprietor of the old 
established Real Estate, Negro, Slave, Money Agency and Intelli- 
gence Office, Third Street between Chestnut and Market streets" 
(Daily Missourian, May 1, 1845). 

173 This advertisement is found in the Richmond Weekly Mirror 
of October 20, 1854: " Negro Woman for Sale. . . . She can be taken 
on trial if preferred." 

174 See the advertisements of Blakey and McAfee (Republican, 
March 6, 1849) ; of B. M. Lynch (Daily Union [St. Louis], Feb- 
ruary 6, 1849); of R. Bartlett (Republican, January 7, 1854), and 
that of Wright and Carter (St. Joseph Commercial Cycle of August 
15,1856). 

175 Most of the notices of official slave sales state that the bidding 
would take place at the east door of the court house. Slaves were 
also sold at the north door (see this study, ch. vi, note 5). 

176 Captain J. A. Wilson. 



52 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Louis to hear a negress on the block thus described : " How- 
much is offered for this woman ? She is a good cook, good 
washer, a good obedient servant. She has got religion ! " 17T 
Nevertheless, the slave traffic at its best was perhaps the 
worst feature of the system. Unruly slaves were con- 
tinually threatened with being " sold south " as a means of 
encouraging industry or of enforcing discipline. Families 
were actually separated and obedient slaves often sold into 
a life of misery " down the river," either because of callous- 
ness on the part of the owner or because financial straits 
demanded it. 178 Many sad incidents occurred at the block. 
Children were at times wrung from their parents. Pro- 
fessor Peter H. Clark of St. Louis remembers a house on 
the southwest corner of Morgan and Garrison Streets in 
which lived a woman who bought up infants from the 
mothers' arms at the slave-markets of St. Louis and raised 
them for profit. 

On the other hand, a little good was inadvertently done 
by some dealers. The story of the finding of Wharton 
Blanton's slave-pen near Wright City, Warren County, is 
most interesting. Certain mounds in that vicinity, some two 
score in number, were supposed to mark the resting-place of 
the members of some ill-fated Spanish expedition, or of an 
Indian tribe. Investigation was started and the mounds 
were opened, but the bodies encountered were found to be 
those of negroes Eventually it was learned that one 

177 P. 83. 

178 Lucy Delaney states that she was continually threatened with 
being sold south. Her father was sent south despite the will of his 
late master. Lucy herself escaped this fate by hiding with friends 
in St. Louis (pp. 14, 22). Undoubtedly the sale of slaves was dis- 
couraged by the better classes. The following letter is dated St 
Joseph, November 26, 1850 : " I must Know tell you what I have 
done with Kitty, I found her two expensive and I sold here for one 
hundred and fifty dollars which money started me House Keeping 
it was through necesity I sold here" (MS. Wm. S. Hereford to 
S. P. Sublette, Sublette Papers). The separation of families was 
also decried. " I have a Negro Woman in St. Louis," runs a letter 
of November 1, 1848; "she should remain [in St. Louis] if she 
prefers it — She may have a child or children, if so, dispose of the 
whole family to the same person" (MS. Captain G. Morris to W. F. 
Darby, Darby Papers). 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 53 

Blanton had bought up diseased negroes about St. Louis 
and taken them to Warren County for recuperation. Those 
who died on his hands were buried in this mysterious 
cemetery. 179 

The incidental and often exceptional results of the system 
were juicy morsels for the antislavery agitators. The 
public too often generalized on these exceptions, which were 
perhaps only too numerous, but were not the normal con- 
ditions of slavery in Missouri. 

Missouri as a slave State differed from others in many 
respects. As it is today, the State was then a vast region 
of unlimited resources both in minerals and soils. It was 
not homogeneous, but displayed a great variety of interests, 
of products, and of industries. As a slave State it was a 
region of small farms, small slave holdings, and relatively 
few slaves. All these conditions make it most difficult to 
reach a conclusion as to the profit or loss of the slavery 
system. 180 It must always be borne in mind that some 
farmers are good managers and can get a profit from almost 
any soil with almost any kind of labor, while others fail 
under the greatest advantages. The statement of a slave- 
holder pro or con must always be considered in connection, 
with the personal equation. 

When the question is asked, " Was slave labor a paying 
proposition in Missouri?" one of three things may be in 
mind: Was slave labor in Missouri as good an investment 
as it was in Texas, Georgia, or some other slave State? 
Was slavery in Missouri as profitable as white labor in Ohio, 
Iowa, or some other free State? Would free labor have 



179 This information was obtained by Mr. T. C. Wilson of Colum- 
bia, Missouri, who was one of the excavators of this cemetery. His 
knowledge of the traffic of Blanton was gained from old residents 
of the neighborhood. He also learned a great deal from Mr. Emil 
Pollien of Warrenton, Missouri, the present possessor of this prop- 
erty. According to Mr. Pollien's papers the land came into the 
possession of the Blanton family in 1829. 

180 When this study was begun the author hoped to arrive at a 
satisfactory conclusion as to the profitableness of slave labor in the 
State. The results have been disappointing. 



54 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

brought greater returns to the Missouri farmer than did 
slave labor? 

The first question is simply a comparison of slave labor 
under different conditions. 'It may well be doubted whether 
this could ever be answered. If the second is meant, it 
must be said that to come to any adequate conclusion the 
account books of hundreds of farmers of Iowa or Ohio 
ought to be compared with those of farmers of Missouri to 
find their profits and losses. There would have to be taken 
into consideration the differences in land values, interest 
rates, market prices, labor rates, cost of raising slaves and 
of clothing them, losses by escape, accident, and deteriora- 
tion, and a mass of other facts. To begin with, few if any 
farmers ever kept such accounts, hence it is not difficult to 
see that the question is insolvable, or at least that any con- 
clusion would be unconvincing to both friend and foe of the 
slavery system. 

Likewise, if the questioner has in mind the comparative 
profits of slave and white labor on the same soil, the data 
are equally unresponsive. As already stated in another part 
of this chapter, white labor was not to be had in some 
counties and was scarce in all. To say that the farmer of 
Lafayette or Pike County was a poor manager in employing 
slave labor is unreasonable. Through tradition, through 
habit, through necessity, he used slave labor. 

'A large number of old slaveholders were asked the ques- 
tion, " Do you think that slavery paid in Missouri ? " Four 
fifths of them replied in the negative. They were then 
asked a second: "At the time did Missouri slaveowners 
think that free labor would have been better for the State? " 
A large majority answered that some perhaps thought 
slavery was an economic burden, but that most of them were 
well satisfied with conditions as they were. After the Civil 
War the advantages of free labor were realized, but not in 
slavery days. 

A prominent Missouri historian declared that " relatively, 
slavery declined in Missouri from 1830 onward to emancipa- 



MISSOURI SLAVERY AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 55 

tion." 181 As was seen in the early pages of this chapter, the 
whites increased much faster than the slaves in the State as 
a whole, but this is not valid proof that slavery was actually 
declining or that it did not pay. Enormous sections of the 
State were unfit for slave labor. These districts invited 
the westward moving settlers, because the land was cheap 
and because white labor shunned the slave portions of the 
State. Because the whites increased faster in the State as 
a whole is not proof that slave labor did not remunerate 
the farmer of Saline or of Marion County. 

Little information of value is gained from the local litera- 
ture of the time. Most of it is political and therefore 
written for a purpose. The proslavery element denied em- 
phatically that slavery was anything but a blessing, whether 
viewed from a financial, a social, or a religious point of 
view. " The slave population of the State of Missouri has 
grown rapidly in the last ten years," exclaimed Senator 
Green in the United States Senate in 1858, " and it is re- 
tained because it is profitable." 182 Even Frank Blair, 
Missouri's most forcible antislavery agitator, declared in 
1855 that the staples of the State, hemp and tobacco, could 
"only be cultivated by slave labor." 183 On the other hand, 
there were a number of prominent Missourians who never 
ceased to decry slavery as a curse. They held the system 
responsible for keeping free labor away from the State, for 
hampering the commerce and industry of St. Louis, and, in 
fact, for preventing Missouri from realizing her possi- 
bilities. 184 

181 C. M. Harvey, " Missouri," in Atlantic Monthly, vol. lxxxiv, 
p. 63. 

182 Speech in reply to Preston King, May 18, 1858 (Congressional 
Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., part iii, p. 2207). 

183 Speech at a joint session of the General Assembly, January, 
1855, pamphlet, p. 4. Blair emphasized this point. In its " Address 
to the people of the United States " the Lexington Pro-Slavery Con- 
vention of 1855 declared that in the great slave counties of western 
Missouri agriculture was prospering. Slavery was held to be the 
cause of this prosperity (Proceedings of the Convention, pp. 3-4). 

184 The Reverend Frederick Starr in 1853 showed how the whites 
were outgrowing the blacks, and how the alien was battering down 
the slavery system. He used the phrase of the time, " One German 



56 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The whole question of the profit and loss of slave labor 
and the relative prosperity of the slave and the free States 
is academic. Hinton R. Helper and his opponents in their 
day thrashed over the question from beginning to end, and 
based their conflicting conclusions on the same census 
figures. No matter what contemporaries or present-day 
authorities conclude, the problem is not one to be mathe- 
matically settled. The amount of data is so enormous and 
at the same time so incomplete and so contradictory that one 
is not justified in drawing conclusions. 

knocks out three slaves and one Irishman two" (Letter no. i, enti- 
tled, " Slavery in Missouri," p. 6) . " The feeling is becoming painful, 
throughout the State, that slavery is retarding its growth, . . . 
making men supercilious, the women dolls, and the children imbe- 
ciles " (ibid., p. 17). See B. Gratz Brown's speech in the Missouri 
House of Representatives, February 12, 1857. He shows how slavery 
was being swamped in the State by the white immigrants. The 
Reverend Galusha Anderson, who was pastor of a Baptist church in 
St. Louis during the late fifties and the sixties, declared that pro- 
slavery sentiment prevailed. " Those who cherished it [proslavery 
belief] were often intense and bitter, and controlled the entire city. 
But on the other hand the leading business men of the city were 
quietly, conservatively, yet positively, opposed to slavery . . . [con- 
sidering it] a drag upon the commercial interests of the city" (p. 9). 



CHAPTER II 

The Slave Before the Law 

Slavery, both of the negro and of the Indian, had existed 
in the Louisiana country from the earliest days. Upon 
the cession of the province to the United States slave prop- 
erty was presumably guaranteed by the Treaty of 1803. 1 
The binding force of the clause protecting property at 
once caused much discussion in the Missouri region and 
later in Congress during the debate on the Compromise of 
1820. Immediately upon the annexation of Louisiana the 
upper or St. Louis portion, called the " District of Louisi- 
ana," was placed under the government of the Indiana 
Territory. 2 This action caused rather a strong outburst of 
feeling in the St. Louis region. In January, 1805, " Repre- 
sentatives elected by the Freemen " of the District of 
Louisiana protested against this assignment for several 

1 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 2, sec. 3. This section reads as fol- 
lows : " The inhabitants of the ceded territory will be incorporated 
into the Union of the states and admitted, as soon as possible . . . 
and during this time they will be upheld and protected in the enjoy- 
ment of their liberty, property, and religion they profess." 

2 Law of March 26, 1804 (United States Statutes at Large, vol. ii, 
p. 287, sec. 12). Whether or not this statute guaranteed the inhabi- 
tants in the possession of their slaves is a question. Section thirteen 
reads: "The laws in force in the said district of Louisiana, at the 
commencement of this act, and not inconsistent with any of the pro- 
visions thereof, shall continue in force until altered, modified or 
repealed by the governor and judges of Indiana territory, as afore- 
said." The powers of the latter seem quite large. The law of March 
3, 1805, which made the Missouri country a separate territory, re- 
quired that the laws must be consistent with the " constitution and 
laws of the United States" (ibid., p. 331, sec. 3). Section nine of 
this statute reads : " And be it further enacted, That the laws and 
regulations, in force in the said district, at the commencement of 
this act and not inconsistent with the provisions thereof, shall con- 
tinue in force, until altered, modified, or repealed by the legisla- 
ture." This seems to give much latitude to the legislature, and ulti- 
mately of course to Congress and the President, who controlled the 
Territory. 

57 



58 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

reasons, one of the chief of which was that they feared for 
their slaves, because such property was proscribed in the 
Indiana Territory. They were apprehensive lest this con- 
nection with Indiana should " create the presumption of a 
disposition in Congress to abolish at a future day slavery 
altogether in the District of Louisiana." This they declared 
would be an infringement of the French treaty. 3 

In October, 1804, the Indiana judges formulated for the 
new district an extensive slave code which would have 
answered for a much larger slave society, 4 there being but 
301 1 slaves in the Missouri Territory as late as 1810. 5 This 
code did not state who were slaves, but did fix the status of 
those to be considered colored, as " every person other than 
a negro whose grandfather or grandmother any one is, or 
shall have been a negro . . . and every such person who shall 
have one-fourth or more of negro blood, shall in a like 
manner be deemed a mulatto." 6 Neither this code nor any 
subsequent Missouri legislation distinguishes between the 
life bondman or slave and the limited bondman or servant, 
as was done in several of the States. However, there were 
some bond servants, either black or white, in the State as 
late as 1832, in which year there were thirty-seven "bound 
to service for a term of years." 7 

The constitution of 1820 guaranteed slave property, as 
no slaves were to be emancipated " without the consent of 

3 Remonstrance and Petition of the Representatives elected by the 
Freemen of the Territory of Louisiana, dated January 4, 1805, pp. 
11-12. Among other things the petition requested "that Congress 
would acknowledge the principle of our being entitled in virtue of 
the treaty, to the free possession of our slaves, and to the right of 
importing slaves into the District, under such restrictions as to Con- 
gress in their wisdom appear necessary" (ibid., p. 22). 

4 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3. 

5 Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 601. Governor Delassus 
gave the slave population of the twelve districts which comprise 
eastern Missouri as 883 in 1799, and the free blacks 197 (American 
State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i, p. 383). 

6 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 6. Reenacted in Revised Laws, 
1825, vol. ii, p. 600, sec. 1. 

7 Senate Journal, 7th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 60-61, 124. There were 
64 of this class in the State according to the state census of 1824 
(Senate Journal, 3d Ass., 1st Sess., p. 41). 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 59 

their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipa- 
tion," and as any " bona fide emigrants to this state, or 
actual settlers therein," were to be secure in such property 
" so long as any persons of the same description are allowed 
to be held as slaves by the laws of this state." 8 But the 
lack of any positive municipal law enslaving the negro must 
have caused some misunderstanding. In the case of Char- 
lotte v. Chouteau, which was argued three times before the 
Missouri supreme court to settle the status of a negress 
whose mother was born in Canada, the court each time de- 
clared that no positive law was necessary. In the final 
hearing in 1857 it was hdd that " slavery now exists in 
Louisiana, Missouri, and Florida without any act of legisla- 
tion introducing it, and none was necessary, for being in 
existence under the sanction at least of France and Spain 
in 1803 ... it was continued, and was not dependent on any 
positive law for its recognition." 9 

The Missouri slave law, like that of Kentucky, is usually 
said to have been taken largely from the Virginia statutes. 
This statement seems to be fairly well founded if the early 
Missouri laws are compared with those of Virginia. The 
Code of 1804 bears many close resemblances, in some cases 
having the identical wording of the Virginia statutes. 10 In 

8 In Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 15, art. iii, sec. 26. This section 
is nearly identical with the Kentucky constitutions of 1792 and 1799 
(B. P. Poore, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. i, p. 647, art. 
ix; p. 657, art. vii). 

9 25 Mo., 465. In Chouteau v. Pierre it was held that " the system 
being recognized in fact, it devolved upon the plaintiff, he being a 
negro, to show the law forbidding it" (9 Mo., 3). In Charlotte v. 
Chouteau it was stated that the existence of slavery in fact was pre- 
sumptive evidence of its legality (11 Mo., 193). The next time this 
case was tried it was held that African slavery was recognized as 
legal in the Spanish, French, and British colonies, though no law 
could be found reducing that race to bondage (21 Mo., 590). 

10 For Virginia statutes with which to compare the Missouri Code 
of 1804 see: Statute of 1723 (Hening's Statutes of Virginia, vol. 
iv, p. 126, sees. 8-14) ; Statute, 1832 (ibid., p. 327) ; Statutes, 1748 
(ibid., vol. v, p. 432; p. 548, sec. 4; p. 558; vol. vi, p. 105, sees, 2, 3, 
13-16) ; Statute, 1753 (ibid., p. 356, sees. 4. 9, 28) ; Statute, 1765 (ibid., 
vol. viii, p. 135, sec. 1); Statute, 1769 (ibid., p. 359, sees. 1, 3-8); 
Statute, 1772 (ibid., p. 522, sec. l) ; Statute, 1776 (ibid., vol. ix, p. 
186) ; Statute, 1782 (ibid., vol. xi, p. 39, sees. 1-3) ; Statute, 1785 
(ibid., vol. xii, p. 145, sees. 22, 23) ; Statute, 1788 (ibid., p. 531, sec. 2). 



60 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

addition to this internal evidence is the fact that Governor 
Harrison and one of the three Indiana judges were natives 
of the Old Dominion, while another judge came from 
Kentucky. 11 As later Missouri slave law was based largely 
on this code, being reenacted in some cases verbatim up to 
the Civil War, the legal status of the Missouri slave in many 
aspects can be traced to the original home of so many of the 
antebellum Missourians. This similarity of the two legal 
systems, as far as slave law is concerned, will in the more 
striking instances be compared in the notes. 

The Code of 1804 made the slave personal property, and 
each revision of the laws followed this precedent. 12 The 
widow's dower in slaves and the division of estates holding 
negroes were the subjects of much technical legislation. 13 

11 The Indiana judges in 1804 were Henry Vanderburgh, born in 
Troy, New York, John Griffin, born in Virginia, and Thomas Terry- 
Davis. The latter came to Indiana from Kentucky where he had 
served as a member of Congress; the place of his birth could not 
be found ("The Executive Journal of the Indiana Territory," edited 
by W. W. Wooley, D. W. How, and J. P. Dunn, in Publications of 
the Indiana Historical Society, vol. iii, no. 3, p. 91). D. W. How 
says that the Indiana slave law of 1803, which was almost identical 
with the Missouri Code of 1804, was adapted from that of Virginia. 
He declares that the Indiana law as a whole was from the following 
sources : seven laws from Virginia, three from Kentucky, two from 
Virginia and Kentucky, one from Virginia and Pennsylvania, one 
from New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and two from Penn- 
sylvania ("The Laws and Courts of the Northwest and Indiana 
Territories," in ibid., vol. ii, no. I, pp. 20-22). 

12 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 27. Revised Laws, 1835, p. 
581, art. iii, sec. 1. The slave was not always considered ordinary 
personal property, but assumed the nature of real estate in certain 
cases, as in a law of January 11, i860, which provided that "when 
slaves or real estate shall be taken in execution ... it shall be his 
[the sheriff's] duty to expose the same for sale at the court house 
door" (Session Laws, Adjourned Session, 1859, P- 63, sec. 1). 

13 Until the widow's dower was assigned the court was to grant 
her an income from realty rents and slave hire " in proportion to 
her interest in the slaves and real estate" (Revised Laws, 1835, p. 
40, art. vi, sec. 12). The widow was very often bequeathed the 
slaves "during her natural life." A number of such wills can be 
found in the MS. Probate Records of Saline County (Will Record 
Book, No. A, 1837-1860). If the husband had no children by his 
last wife, "in lieu of dower [she could] elect to take in addition to 
her real estate, the slaves and other personal property " which came 
to her through this marriage (Revised Laws, 1835, p. 227, sec. 3; 
see also provision concerning dower in slaves in Session Laws, 1836, 
p. 60). 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 6 1 

In case of an inability to divide an estate " the court may 
order the sale of slaves, or other personal property." 14 The 
court often exercised this power. Descriptions of the dis- 
tribution of negroes belonging to an estate, showing how 
some of the heirs gave or took cash to equalize the division 
in case the slaves varied in value, can be found in the pro- 
bate records of the various counties. 15 

Slaves could be seized in execution on a lien under certain 
conditions. 16 Whenever sold in such distraint the negroes 
were to be advertised by hand bills or by publication in a 
newspaper twenty days before the sale. 17 A law of 1835 
provided that " if the perishable goods [of the deceased] be 
not sufficient to pay the debts, the executor . . . [shall dis- 
pose] of the slaves last until the debts and legacies are all 
paid." 18 Examples of the sale bills of slaves sold in execu- 
tion are numerous in the probate records. 19 

14 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 40, art. vi, sec. 4- The Code of 1804 
made this same provision (Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 30). 

15 For an instance of such a division of slaves see the example 
given in The History of Henry and St. Clair Counties (St. Louis. 
I 883), p. 130. The probate court of St. Louis in 1844 appointed 
appraisers who divided the slaves between the children of Antoine 
Chenie. This arrangement did not satisfy them, and so on March 
21 of that year they filed a petition stating that " an equal division 
of the said slaves cannot be made . . . without great prejudice to 
said petitioners and praying the Court to order the sale of the said 
slaves and cause the money to be distributed according to the several 
rights of said petitioners" (MS. Probate Records of St. Louis, Es- 
tate No. 1731). The circuit court records of the several counties 
are quite rich in petitions for the division of groups of slaves. 

16 Revised Statutes, 1855, vol. i, p. 669. This law also placed slaves 
on an equality with other personal property. 

17 Session Laws, 1859, p. 93, sec. 1. This law was to apply spe- 
cifically to the judicial circuit of Cape Girardeau County. 

18 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 40, art. vi, ch. 2, sec. 32. 

19 " In the St. Louis Circuit Court, April Term 1845. This bill of 
sale made this twenty seventh day of September ... by John W. 
Reel . . . and Henry M. Shreeve of the second part ... for and in 
consideration of Seven hundred & fifty Dollars ... a Negro man 
named William about thirty years of age and a slave for life" (MS. 
Probate Records, St. Louis, November, 1859, Estate of John W. 
Reel, Bill of Sale filed June 17, 1845). For an example of an adver- 
tising bill of a slave sold in execution we read in the Western Moni- 
tor (Fayette), July 4, 1829: "PUBLIC SALE of a valuable Negro 
Man On the first day of the July term of Howard County Circuit 
Court to be holden at Fayette on the first monday in July next, I 
will sell at public sale to the highest bidder for cash in hand, a likely 



62 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

While in probate the slaves of an estate were to be hired 
to the highest bidder, " unless the court order otherwise." 20 
This form of property caused more trouble than most others 
because of the peculiar risks. One widow complained that 
a slave on whose labor she depended was very prone to 
abscond for months at a time. She obtained permission to 
sell this negro and purchase another, but this one also be- 
came a source of great trouble. 21 The Code of 1804 for- 
bade a widow to leave the State with slaves in whom other 
heirs had a claim. 22 This provision was reenacted in i83i, 23 
and apparently was rigorously enforced. 24 

Slaves do not always appear to have been considered as 
mere chattels. An old ordinance of the city of St. Charles 
required the whites and the slaves in common to turn out 

negro man belonging to the estate of Thomas Crews deceased in 
order to raise funds to pay off the debts due by said estate. David 
D. Crews, Exec'r T. Crews dec'd." 

20 Revised Laws, 1835, P- 40, art. ii, sec. 41. A guardian could also 
sell slaves and loan the proceeds of the sale (Local and Private 
Acts, 1855, p. 402). An administrator could sell the slaves, the pro- 
ceeds going to the widow for life (ibid., p. 448). 

21 MS. Probate Records, St. Louis, No. 2068, Estate of Beverley 
Allen. Papers filed June 23, 1848, and March 20, 1850. The danger 
and peculiarity of slave property is shown in the provisions by which 
slave title passed. Slaves were transferred (1) by will only under 
the set form, (2) by " deed in writing, to be proved by not less than 
two witnesses, or acknowledged by donor, and recorded in the 
county where one of the parties lives, within six months after the 
date of such deed" (Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581, art. iii, sec. 2). 
This article was not placed in the later revisions. Slaves seemingly 
took on the character of real estate in this provision. 

22 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 28, 29. A Virginia statute 
of 1785 forbade a widow to remove slaves from the State unless the 
heirs in reversion gave their consent (Hening, vol. xii, p. 145, sees. 
22, 23). 

23 Session Laws, 1830, ch. 70. Somewhat modified in Revised 
Laws, 1835, P. 3&4, sees. 30, 33. 

24 In 1841 one Adolphus Bryant, accompanied by William Kio, 
took two slaves from St. Louis to New Orleans. These negroes 
were the temporary property of Bryant's wife, her first husband's 
children having an interest in them after her death. These heirs 
had Bryant and Kio arrested for slave-stealing. The captain and 
clerk of the steamer Meteor were forced to give bail, but Bryant 
and Kio could not furnish bond and were consequently jailed (Daily 
Evening Gazette, August 13, 1841). 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 63 

and work the streets of the town under a penalty. 25 As a 
slave could not vote this could not have been a poll tax. It 
was therefore really a double tax on slave property, as the 
master also paid a property tax on his negroes. 

Ownerships in slaves were often held by free colored 
persons. Sometimes these were owned as bona-fide prop- 
erty, but usually merely in the interim between the date 
when the free negro purchased the freedom of the slave 
and the date of the latter's liberation. The following item 
appears in the St. Louis circuit court records for March 16, 
1837: "Thomas Keller a free man of colour, comes into 
court and acknowledges a deed of Emancipation in favor of 
his negro slave named Ester, a woman aged thirty-nine 
years." 20 Many such entries appear in the circuit court 
records of the various counties. In David v. Evans the 
state supreme court by a decision of 2 to I held that a free 
negro could legally hold slaves. 27 Thus it can readily be 
seen that slave ownership was unique. It was declared by 
the law to be personal estate, but both the law and circum- 
stances made so many exceptions that it became a form of 
property peculiar to itself. 

A slave could hold no property in his own right. In 1830 
it was held that the mere fact that a negro was keeping a 
"barber's shop and selling articles in that shop is such 
evidence of freedom as ought to have gone to the jury." 28 
This assertion implies that a property right gave the pre- 
sumption of a free status. Other decisions bear out this 
impression. 

25 Ordinance of April 28, 1821, "Concerning the Streets of St. 
Charles." Section three reads: "All able bodied persons of the age 
of 16 to 50 years, are required to work on the streets to which they 
may be assigned and on failing . . . each person shall forfeit and 
pay $2.00 each day, if a man of full age, if a minor by his parents 
or guardian, and if a slave by his master, overseer or employer 
(printed in the Missourian of May 2, 1821). 

26 MS. Records St. Louis Circuit Court, vol. 8, p. i04- For further 
examples of this practice see ibid., p. 240, ibid vol. 6, p. 421, and 
also a paper dated December 3, 1855. in the MS Darby Papers. 

27 18 Mo., 249. See also Machan (negro) v. Julia Logan (negress ), 
4 Mo., 361. 
28 The State v. Henry, 2 Mo., 177- 



64 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The local Dred Scott decision of 1852 possibly influenced 
the court in its later renderings and general sentiment re- 
garding most phases of slave rights. 29 In reversing a lower 
decision relative to the purchase of goods by a slave for his 
master, the state supreme court held in 1857 that "our 
system of slavery resembles that of the Romans rather than 
the villanage of the ancient common law. . . . Under the 
former law, slaves were ' things ' and not ' persons ' ; they 
were not the subjects of civil rights, and of course were 
incapable of owning property or of contracting legal obliga- 
tions." 30 This being the case, the slave had no legal right 
even to the clothes on his back. Hence he could make no 
valid contract, nor could he either sue or be sued. 

The court applied this principle rigidly in i860. In that 
year a case was tried in which the owner had sold a slave 
after entering into a contract to manumit him on the pay- 
ment of a specific sum. The slave held a receipt from the 
master for most of the stated amount. After denying the 
slave any right to sue in the courts of the State, the court 
held that " the incapacities of his condition . . . suggest, at 
the threshold of the inquiry, insuperable obstacles to the 
specific enforcement of an executory contract between the 
master and himself . . . even where there might be a com- 
plete fulfillment on the part of the slave." 31 Thus at the 
very close of the slavery regime the doctrine was again 
enunciated that the slave had absolutely no property rights 
independent of his owner. 

It has been seen that a slave had a legal right to no 
property whatever, although he naturally held temporarily 
the furniture and utensils necessary for carrying on his 
small household in the slave quarters. As laws against the 
commercial dealings of slaves date from the earliest slave 
code in old Louisiana and are continuously reenunciated 
from then till i860, the conclusion must be reached that this 
was a serious problem. The Missouri laws are unfortu- 

29 Scott (a man of color) v. Emerson, 15 Mo., 570. 

30 Douglas v. Richie, 24 Mo., 177. 

31 Redmond (colored) v. Murray et al., 30 Mo., 570. 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 65 

nately not often prefixed by preambles, whether elaborate 
or only brief, hence the reasons for the law are left largely 
to speculation. For petty crimes of this nature the slave 
was simply haled before a justice of the peace, and con- 
sequently there are no records by which one may judge of 
the real gravity of the situation. It might well have been 
feared that the slave, by buying or selling without per- 
mission, would dispose of his owner's goods. But there 
was also, as in the case of the slave hiring himself out with- 
out his master's consent, the danger that he might grow 
independent and unruly in disposition. 

The Black Code of 1724 forbade buying or selling without 
a written permission from the master, and fixed a fine of 
fifteen hundred livres upon any one so dealing with a slave 
without permission. When the owner gave his negro such 
permission, he was responsible for the commercial acts of 
the slave. 32 The police regulations of Governor Carondelet 
of 1795, under penalty of twenty-five lashes, prohibited a 
slave from selling without his master's consent even the 
products of the waste land given him for his own use. 33 
The Code of 1804 fined a dealer four times the value of the 
consideration involved, with costs, while the informer of 
such a transaction received twenty dollars. A free negro 
for the same offense was given thirty stripes " well laid on " 
in default of the payment of this fine. 34 This section seems 



32 B. F. French, Historical Collections of Louisiana, vol. iii, p. 89, 
sees, i^ 2?. 

33 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i, p. 380. The Laws 
of Las Seite Partidas bound the master to all commercial acts of the 
slave if the former commissioned the slave to " exercise any trade 
or commerce" (vol. i, p. 485). It is not known what binding force 
these semiclerical laws had in the Louisiana colonial courts, lne 
translators of these laws claim that they had the force of law as 
late as 1820 (translator's note, vol. i, p. 1). In 1745. Governor Pierre 
Regant De Vandreuil drew up a police regulation in which a white 
person for illegally dealing with a slave was to be placed in the 
pillory for the first offense and sent to the galleys for the second 
(C. Gayarre, History of Louisiana, vol. u, app., p. 301, art. xvu;. 
The severity of the penalty implies that the problem was somewhat 

^Territorial Laws, vol. i. ch. 3, sec. 11. The master was also 
liable for the transactions of his slave (ibid., sec. 18). 



66 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

to have been taken almost word for word from Virginia 
statutes of 1753 and 1785, the only difference being that the 
information fee was to be five pounds instead of twenty 
dollars. 35 The Missouri legislature reenacted this law 
verbatim in 1822, 36 1823, 1835, 1845, and 1855. 37 Many of 
the Missouri statutes sprang from this superimposed code of 
the Indiana judges of 1804, and continued in operation with 
little or no change till slavery disappeared in the State. 

The charter of Carondelet of 1851 empowered the city 
council " to impose fines, penalties and forfeitures on the 
owners and masters of slaves suffered to go at large or to 
act or deal as free persons." 38 Other particular communi- 
ties seem also to have experienced grave apprehensions from 
this cause, as is indicated by a statute passed in 1861 which 
forbade any owner in Macon County to permit his slave to 
sell refreshments or do huckstering of any kind unless under 
the direction of himself or an overseer. The penalty was 
from fifteen to twenty dollars, which was to go to the county 
school fund. Such cases were to be taken before a justice 
of the peace. 39 

The slave early caused apprehension by both vending and 
imbibing liquor. In 181 1 an ordinance was passed in St. 
Louis fining an offender ten dollars for selling a negro any 
"spiritous or ardent liquor" without his master's consent. 
If a person found a slave in a state of intoxication in the 



3j Hemng, vol. vi, p. 356, sec. 9; ibid., vol. xii, p. 182, sec. 6. A 
statute of 1769 fined a master £10 for allowing his slave to go at 
large and trade as a free man because of numerous thefts thereby 
committed (ibid., vol. viii, p. 360, sec. 8). 

36 Territorial Laws, vol. i, p. 399, sec. 1. 

37 Law of March 1, 1823 (Laws of Missouri, 1825, vol. ii, p. 746, 
sec. 1). If the consideration was over ninety dollars, the case could 
be earned to the circuit court. Reenacted in Revised Laws, 1835, p. 
5«i,. art. 1, sec. 37; Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 167, art. i, sec. 31: 

as'! Statutes > l8 55, ch. 150, art. i, sec. 31. 

■ rt 'j V 'u Se - c ' 2I ' This section a l so refers to careless owners who 
permitted their slaves to hire themselves out without due formality. 
it \yas a pressing problem in Missouri (see above, pp. 35-37). It was 
decided in 1853 that "hiring a slave to maul rails without the con- 
sent ot his master is not a dealing with the slave," manual labor not 
being considered "dealing" under the law (State v. Henke, 19 
Mo., 225). ' * 

39 Session Laws, i860, p. 417, sees. I, 2. 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 67 

streets or other public place, he was to give the offender ten 
lashes. The master or mistress of such slave was to be 
fined five dollars for neglecting to punish him. 40 A law of 
1833 forbade a store, tavern, or grog-shop keeper to permit 
slaves or free negroes to assemble on his premises without 
the owner's assent, under a penalty of from five to fifty 
dollars. 41 The Act of 1835 Regulating Inns and Taverns 
fined the keepers of such places from ten to fifty dollars for 
" bartering in liquors " with slaves, free blacks, or appren- 
tices without the consent in writing of their masters. 42 The 
Grocers' Regulation Act of the same year fined such a 
person for this offence from fifteen to fifty dollars and 
costs and revoked his license. 43 Cases on record indicate 
that these provisions were at times enforced. In 1853 
James Hill was fined twenty-five dollars by the Boone 
County circuit court for selling liquor to slaves, 44 and in 
1859 Henry Hains was similarly punished. 45 

The slave as well as the white and the free black engaged 
in illicit liquor dealing. The Revision of 1835 placed a fine 
of three hundred dollars upon the master who allowed his 
slave to sell or deliver any spiritous or vinous liquors to 
any other slave without the consent of the latter's owner, 
and the offending slave was to receive not more than 
twenty-five stripes after a summary trial before a justice of 
the peace. He was to be released only after the master had 

40 An Ordinance concerning Slaves in the Town of St. Louis, 
February 5, 181 1 (MS. Record Book of the Trustees of St. Louis, 
pp. 23-25, sees. 1, 3). That the slave often drank to excess is learned 
from the following advertisements : " Runaway this morning, my 
negro man David. He is a black man . . . stout^made, fond of 
whiskey, getting drunk whenever he can procure it" (Missouri Ga- 
zette [St. Louis], March 9, 1820, advertisement of Nathan Benton). 
" Ranaway from the farm of General Rector ... my servant John 
a very bright freckled mulatto ... he is remarkably fond of 
whiskey" (ibid., July 5, 1820). 

41 Session Laws, 1832, ch. 41, sees. 1,2. . 

42 Revised Laws, 183S, p. 315, sec. 22. Reenacted, Revised Stat- 
utes, 1845, ch. 83, sec. 22. 

« Revised Statutes, 1845, P- 291, sec. 7- It was necessary to prove 
that the grocer was actually licensed when the liquor was sold to 
slaves (Fraser v. The State, 6 Mo., 195)- _ 

44 MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book t, p. 190. 

45 Ibid., Book H, pp. 82, 173, 282. 



68 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

paid the costs and had given a bond of two hundred dollars 
for his negro's good behavior for one year. The slave could 
be sold if not removed from jail by the second day of the 
following session of the county court. 46 The Revision of 
1845 fi xe d tne maximum punishment of a slave selling liquor 
at thirty-nine lashes, and his owner was to pay all costs. 47 
In addition to this penalty the Revision of 1855 fi ne d the 
owner from twenty to one hundred dollars. 48 

It was held in 1850 that if a person sold liquor to a slave 
without the master's consent and the negro was made drunk 
and died, the vendor of the liquor was liable for legal 
damages, even though a clerk sold the liquor without the 
proprietor's knowledge. 49 Despite the number of statutes 
on this subject, the press does not reflect a serious condi- 
tion of drunkenness among the slaves. Lack of money on 
the part of the negro as well as fear on the side of the mer- 
chant prevented the problem from assuming alarming pro- 
portions. 

Although the Missouri slave was without any property 
rights, he was not a mere thing. He was not absolutely at 
the mercy of his master. The constitution of 1820 required 
the legislature to pass laws " to oblige the owners of slaves 
to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all in- 
juries to them extending to life or limb." The slave was 
also to be given a jury trial, and, if convicted of a capital 
offence, was to receive the same punishment as a white 
person for a like offence, " and no other," and he was to be 
assigned counsel for his defence. 50 The definite principle 

46 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 591, art. i, sees. 17-22. 

47 Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 72, sees. 7, 25. 

48 Revised Statutes, 1855, ch. 57, sees. 17, 19, 23. 

49 Skinner et al. v. Hughes, 13 Mo., 440. 

50 Art. iii, sees. 26, 27. " No other state constitution gave so much 
protection to the rights of the slave as this one" (F. C. Shoemaker, 
The First Constitution of Missouri, p. 55). These sections are nearly 
identical with the Kentucky constitutions of 1792 and 1799 (Poore, 
p. 647, art. ix ; p. 657, art. vii). In the territorial period two cases are 
recorded in the MS. Records of the St. Louis general court or court 
of record, wherein it appears that the slave had fair treatment in 
court. In United States v. Le Blond (vol. ii, pp. 86, 06) the latter 
was fined $500 and costs and imprisoned for two months for killing 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 69 

was declared that "any person who shall maliciously de- 
prive of life or dismember any slave, shall suffer such 
punishment as would be inflicted for a like offence if it 
were committed on a free white person." 51 For striking 
his master a law of 1825 condemned an unruly slave to 
punishment after conviction before a justice, but gave the 
master no permission to punish him. 52 Furthermore, 
several decisions were at various times rendered by the 
supreme court of Missouri which show that it was disposed 
to protect the slave against the arbitrary will of his master. 
In Nash v. Prinne it is incidentally stated that "the justice 
of the country shall be satisfied," and that the slayer of a 
bondman was first to be criminally prosecuted before civil 
damages could be allowed. 53 In other words, the court 
declared that in the maiming of a slave the public was 
outraged to a greater extent than the owner was injured 
financially. Justice was not to be sacrificed for the personal 
gain of the master. In 1846 a person sought escape from 
prosecution for injuring a slave on the plea of an improper 
indictment, but the court in this instance declared that " it 
made no difference whether the slave belonged to the de- 
fendant or to a third person. ... It could answer no useful 
purpose whatever, unless to designate with greater certainty 
the person of the injured slave." 54 Thus a white man was 
not allowed to escape justice on a technicality, even though 
his victim was a bondman. 

his slave. Le Blond's provocation is not stated. In 1820 one Prinne 
was found not guilty on a charge of murdering his slave, Walter by 
confining him "in a dungeon or cell dangerous to his health 
(ibid., pp. 226, 230, 234, 236). The Missouri Gazette of September 
4, 1818, gave accounts of two negroes then being tried for murder 
before the local court, one being defended by two and the other by 
three counsel. The above provision is very similar in nature to a 
Virginia statute of 1772 which provided that slaves suffering death 
for burglary were not to be refused benefit of clergy unless the 
said breaking, in the case of a freeman would be burglary (Hen- 
ing, vol. viii, p. 522, sec. 1). . 

« Art iii, sec. 28. A case was decided under this section twenty 
years later (Fanny v. The State, 6 Mo., 122). 

52 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 309. sec. M- 

53 1 Mo., 125. 

54 Grove v. The State, 10 Mo., 233. 



•JO SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The right of any other white than the master to mistreat 
a slave was emphatically denied, one decision holding that 
" such offences stand on the same ground as when white 
persons cruelly use each other." 55 The whole subject of 
the treatment of the slave will be considered in the follow- 
ing chapter. Whatever the practice of individuals may have 
been, the wording of the statutes and of the court decisions 
is certainly humane and praiseworthy. 

In most of the States there was a stiffening up of the 
criminal laws following insurrections or severe antislavery 
agitation, but the Missouri slave code of 1835 was reenacted 
almost verbatim in 1845 an d again in 1855. More stringent 
patrolling regulations were enacted and there was an in- 
creasing bitterness toward outside interference or the free 
airing of antislavery views at home, but of a growing 
hostility toward the negro or fear of trouble there is little 
reflection in law or decision. Even the newspapers, despite 
their occasional rancorous political vituperation, evince a 
spirit of justice to the black bondman, even if not toward the 
white opponent in politics. Some of the most lofty opinions 
regarding the duty of the whites toward the slave and his 
right to seek freedom under the laws are to be found in the 
period between the Compromise of 1850 and the Civil War. 
Even the obvious danger of the Kansas struggle, instead of 
reacting on the slave, seems to have been focussed on the 
white abolitionist and the Bentonites. More severe control 
of movement and stricter inspection of slave meetings and 
assemblies are evident, but of change in the personal treat- 
ment of the bondman, either in law or practice, little can be 
seen other than what would naturally follow a growing 
system needing more orderly control. 

At the same time the Dred Scott dictum as enunciated by 
the Missouri supreme court in 1852 shows that in principle 
the State was ready to change her policy the better to protect 
the system. The Missourians who favored slavery desired 
not to depress their blacks, but rather to extend slave terri- 



' ,,: ' The State v. Peters, 28 Mo., 241. 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 



71 



tory in order to safeguard their colored property. Thus as 
late as i860, when her own slaves numbered scarcely one 
eighth of her total population, Missouri was made the 
battering-ram to fight against the abolition influence in 
Kansas. 

The criminal legislation affecting the slave falls according 
to penalties under three heads : capital offences ; mutilation ; 
whipping. 

The Code of 1804 provided the death penalty without 
benefit of clergy " if any negro or other slave shall at any 
time consult, advise or conspire to rebel or make insurrection 
or shall plot or conspire the murder of any person or 
persons whatever." 56 The same punishment was to be in- 
flicted for administering poison or " any medicine whatever " 
unless there was no evil intent and no actual harm resulted." 
Thus the slave was responsible for both the intent and the 
result of his act, while with the white the old common-law 
idea of the intent alone was considered in a criminal charge. 

When these provisions are compared with the general 
criminal law of 1808, it is found that if the slave was cruelly 
used the white man was no less severely handled. Under 
that statute any individual, black or white, was to suffer 
castration for rape, thirty-nine lashes for burglary, dis- 
franchisement and an hour in the pillory for perjury, forty- 
nine lashes on the bare back " well laid on " for stealing and 
branding horses and cattle, and death for stealing or enslav- 
ing a negro whom he knew to be free. 58 

56 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 14. This provision is identical 
with a Virginia statute of 1748 (Hening, vol. vi, p. 105, sec. 2). 

57 Hening, vol. vi, p. 105, sees. 15, 16. In 1825 a law likewise 
made it a death penalty for a slave to prepare, exhibit, or administer 
any medicine whatever, but if such medicine was found to be harm- 
less and no evil intent was evident, he was to receive stripes at the 
discretion of the court (Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 312, sec. 08). 
In 1843 an act was passed fining any person a maximum of fifty 
dollars for selling poisoned drugs to any slave without the written 
consent of the owner (Session Laws, 1842, p. 102, sees. 1, 2). In 
1818 a slave was tried on a poison charge in St. Louis (MS. Records 
of St. Louis Court of Records, vol. ii, pp. 180, 184). 

58 Territorial Laws, vol. i, p. 210, sees. 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22, 39. 45. 
That some of these provisions were literally carried out is learned 
from the Missouri Intelligencer of April 24, 1824, wherein is an 



J2 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The law of 1804 as to conspiracy was virtually reenacted 
in 1825, but the punishment was limited to thirty-nine stripes 
if the slave simply conspired without committing the " overt 
act," unless he " unwittingly " entered the conspiracy and 
voluntarily confessed with "genuine repentance" before 
being accused of the crime. In the latter case he might be 
pardoned, but the second offence was to be punishable by 
death in any case. 59 As already stated, the constitution of 
1820 limited the punishment of a slave for a capital offence 
to the same degree of punishment that would be inflicted 
upon a white person for the same crime. 60 There seems to 
have been no slave insurrection of any magnitude in 
Missouri, but the commission of a number of crimes punish- 
able by death is recorded, the accounts often not specifying 
whether they were committed by slaves or by free colored 
persons. 61 



advertisement for one William Job, a horse thief, who had broken 
out of the Cooper County jail. He could be recognized as he "has 
lately been whipped for the said crime, and his back in all probability 
is not yet entirely healed." Cases of selling free blacks into slavery 
seem to have been rare. On January 27, 1835, one Jacob Gregg was 
granted relief" for expenses in taking Palsa Rouse and Sarah 
bcntchfield, ' arrested for having sold a free person as a slave" 
(Senate Journal, 8th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 208). 

59 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 312, sees. 96, 97. 

60 Art. iii, sec. 27. 

61 In December, 1835, Israel B: Grant of Callaway County, a mem- 
ber of the legislature, was murdered, his throat being cut. "We 
have been informed that this horrid deed has been traced to one of 
his own slaves," reads the account in the Jeffersonian Republican of 
January 9 1836. In 1836 a sheriff submitted a bill for fees in holding 
a slave charged with murder (Senate Journal, 9th Ass., 1st Sess., 
p. 127). In 1841 four negroes (status not given) were hanged for 
murder and incendiarism (R. Edwards and M. Hopewell, Edwards's 
Great West and her Commercial Metropolis, p. 372). In April, 1847, 
a slave named Eli was lynched in Franklin County for murdering 
a white woman (History of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Craw- 

and Gasconade Counties, p. 283). In Lincoln County a slave 
named Gibbs was burned for murdering his master during a brawl 
when both were drunk. The date of this affair is not given (History 
of Lincoln County [Chicago, 1888], pp. 365-368). In 1850 a white 
man named McChntock and a slave woman were hanged by a Clay 
County mob for murdering a white woman. Being a slave, her 
testimony could not be accepted against her white confederate, and 
so both wer e lynch d ( Hj st0 ry of Clay and Platte Counties [St. 
Lou,s 1885], pp. 158-159). Several attacks were made in the year 
i«55 by slaves on their masters and mistresses (ibid., pp. 158-150) 
I wo slaves were tried for murder in 1852 (Weekly Missouri Sen- 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 73 

That his bondage was no absolute deterrent in preventing 
criminal assault by the negro can be seen by a survey of the 
slavery period in Missouri. The general criminal law of 
1808 punished rape, whether committed by a white or a 
black, by castration. 62 In 1825 another criminal law like- 
wise made mutilation the punishment of any one who 
assaulted a girl under ten years of age, but a slave who 
assaulted any white woman, no matter what her age might 
be, was to suffer castration. 03 Although both whites and 
blacks were to be thus punished, no record of a white being 
so used has been noted, but several instances of negroes 
treated in this manner are on record. 64 

tinel, August 10, 1853). On July 12, 1854, a slave woman poisoned 
the Kent family of Warren County. The victims recovered (Repub- 
lican, August 1, 1854). In August, 1854, W. T. Cochran of Trenton 
was stabbed by a slave (Richmond Weekly Mirror, August 11, 1854). 
A negress killed Robert Newson near Fulton on June 23, 1855 (Mis- 
souri Statesman [Columbia], July 6, 1855). In 1857 in Boone County 
a slave named Pete was given twenty-five lashes for a murderous 
attack. Charles Simmons, his owner, was ordered to pay the costs 
of the prosecution (MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County. Book 
G, p. 281, Book H, pp. 226, 246). In 1859 a slave named Jack An- 
derson murdered his master, Seneca Diggs, in Howard County, and 
escaped to Canada (Session Laws, i860, p. 534)- 

62 Territorial Laws, vol. i, p. 210, sec. 8. 

63 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 312, sees. 10, 11, 09. 

64 In 1844 a slave was sentenced to be castrated for a rape (Nathan, 
a slave, v. The State, 8 Mo, 631). In 1853 two negroes (status not 
given) were so sentenced (The State v. Anderson, 19 Mo., 241). 
The Republican of April 30, 1838, records that a negro (status not 
given) was thrown overboard from a river boat and drowned tor 
an assault. Several negroes murdered Dr. Fisk and child of Jasper 
County in July, 1852. His wife was raped and killed and the house 
was burned (Weekly Missouri Sentinel, August 4, 1852)- In i»53 
a negro was taken from jail and hanged for an assault (ibid, Augus 
25, 1853). At Boonville in September, 1853, a negro was caught 
"and beat almost to death" for an attempted rape (ibid September 
1, 1853). In the same year at Springfield two negroes were burned and 
one was hanged for an assault (AD. Richardson 'Free M.ssounm 
Atlantic Monthly, vol. xxi, pp. 363, 492). In ' 8 59.asavc s - 
missed for some reason by the Greene County circuit court a cr 
having been indicted for rape by a special session of the gr and jury 
(MS Records, Book Dr., pp. 487-488, 50 ). ;»J^ Statev 
Anderson it was held that the character of. the white girl or that 
of her parents was not relevant,.as it was simply a questi ^n of t he 
assailant being a negro and the victim a white female (19 Mo, 241 )• 
?n S many case! the accounts do not state whether *e .ne£0 m que* 
tion was free or a slave, but as the slaves of the State ^numbered 
the free blacks thirty to one the presumption is strong that they 
were slaves. 



74 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The slave was not to be fined or imprisoned, 65 save at 
his master's request. 66 He was therefore punished phys- 
ically in cases where a white man would be fined or incar- 
cerated. In some instances the maximum and minimum 
number of lashes are given while in others the matter was 
left to the "discretion" of the court. All whippings, 
whether received by whites or blacks, were to be given in 
public "and well and truly laid on such offenders' bare 
backs, and that without favor or affection." 67 In theory at 
least the law made no distinction between the white and the 
black offender in the early days. Punishment by stripes 
being the only form of punishment for the slave besides 

65 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 312, sec. 99. Females other than 
slaves could not be whipped (ibid., sec. 101). 

68 Local police regulations made exceptions to this provision. In 
St. Louis slaves were imprisoned unless the owner paid fines im- 
posed for various offences (St. Louis Ordinances, 1836, p. 89, sec. 
2; p. 25, sec. 5). An early ordinance of St. Louis fined a master 
one dollar a year if his slave kept a dog within the city limits (Ordi- 
nance of February 25, 181 1, MS. Record Book of the Trustees of 
St. Louis, p. 42, sec. 3). An ordinance of St. Charles fined an owner 
ten dollars if his negro littered the streets of the town (Ordinance 
of the Board of Trustees of St. Charles, April 28, 1821, in the Mis- 
sourian of May 2, 1821). Another ordinance of St. Charles fined 
the master the same amount if the slave injured the woods on the 
village common (ibid., April 13, 1822, in the Missourian of April 
18, 1822). 

67 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 312, sec. 30. But all whippings 
were not performed in public. Thomas Shackelford states that 
when he was a boy one of their slaves was unjustly condemned to 
be whipped. The family were indignant, but the neighbors demanded 
that the negro be punished. The sheriff took the slave into a shed 
and bound him to a post. The crowd waited till they heard the lash 
applied and the negro yell with pain. After the crowd had disap- 
peared the sheriff brought the slave out to young Shackelford, who 
was told to keep the matter secret as the sheriff had only lashed 
the post and had made the negro scream that the crowd might be 
mollified ("Early Recollections of Missouri," in Missouri Historical 
Society Collections, vol. ii, no. 2, p. 9). When the old sheriff's 
house was destroyed at Lexington, Captain J. A. Wilson secured 
the slave whip which had been the official Lafayette County flagel- 
lum. It is composed of a wooden handle attached to a flat piece of 
rubber strap about eighteen inches long, an inch and a half wide, 
and a quarter of an inch thick. It has the appearance of having 
been cut from rubber belting, being reenforced with fibre as is 
rubber hose. It would cause a very painful blow without leaving a 
scar. If scarred the negro would be less valuable, as a prospective 
buyer would consider him vicious or liable to absconding if bearing 
the marks of punishment (see below, p. 96). 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 75 

hanging and mutilation, it was thus more or less definitely 
limited to prevent either a too severe or a too lenient 
sentence. 

Resistance to the owner or overseer was considered the 
gravest offence after the two treated above. 68 The Code of 
1804 fixed the maximum at thirty lashes for lifting a hand 
against any person not a negro or mulatto unless " wantonly 
assaulted." 60 The general criminal law of 1825 empowered 
the master to incarcerate his slave in the public jail, at his 
own expense, if the slave resisted his " lawful demands " or 
refused to obey him, " and if any slave shall, contrary to his 
bounden duty, presume to strike or assault his or her master 
. . . such slave, on conviction before a justice of the peace, 
shall be whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes." 70 

Although no insurrections of any importance were ever 
even threatened in Missouri, there was a continual reenact- 
ment of the early legislation to prevent seditious speeches 
and riotous meetings. The Missouri slaveholder, being sur- 
rounded on three sides by free territory where abolitionism 
was more or less active, and knowing that the great rivers 
of the State offered a ready means of escape for the slave, 
feared the loss of his property rather than personal danger. 
Hence the amount of legislation and litigation concerning 
the fugitive. The Missourians retained the laws which the 
Indiana judges had given them in 1804 relative to slave 
insurrections. These laws were later reenacted so as to be 
in harmony with those of the other slave States, which were 
continually threatened with servile outbreaks. The subject 
of slave assemblages will be treated in Chapter VI of this 
study. 

The evidence that might be offered by the slave was a 

68 The terms " master," " mistress," " owner," and " overseer "are 
used interchangeably in this paper. The law provided that these 
terms were to be considered synonymous before the courts (Revised 
Statutes, 1835, vol. i, p. 581, sec. 39). , T _ , , , Q 

6 9 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3. sec. 12. A Kentucky law of 1798 
provided that a slave be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty 
lashes for striking any person not a negro (J. C. Hurd, lhe Law 
of Freedom and Bondage, vol. ii, p. 14) • 

70 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 309, sec. 84. 



j6 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

point which caused considerable legislation. In the first 
section of the Code of 1804 it was provided that "no negro 
or mulatto shall be a witness except in pleas of the United 
States against negroes or mulattoes or in civil pleas where 
negroes alone shall be parties." 71 Practice gave rise to 
some exceptions, and a number of decisions later modified 
this provision in some details, but the principle was never 
deserted. Slaves were allowed to testify against whites in 
some instances. When the Illinois abolitionists, Burr, 
Work, and Thompson, were placed on trial at Palmyra in 
1 84 1, their counsel sought in vain to exclude the testimony 
of the slaves whom they had sought to liberate. This testi- 
mony was given through the masters of these slaves, which 
the narrator implies was the custom. 72 

In cases where suit was brought for damages in selling an 
unsound slave the latter's declaration of " a symptom or ap- 
pearance of disease, is competent evidence to prove that the 
slave was at the time diseased." 73 In Hawkins v. The State 
it was held that "on the trial of an indictment against a 
white person, the State may give in evidence a conversation 
between the accused and a negro in relation to the offense 
charged, when the conversation on the part of the negro is 
merely given in evidence as an indictment, and in illustra- 
tion of what was said by a white person, and not by the 
negro." 74 This case seems very close to the line of allowing 
a negro to testify against a white, the technical distinction 
being between an indictment before a grand jury and a trial. 

11 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 1. A Virginia law of 1732 
forbade a negro, mulatto, or Indian to give evidence except in cases 
involving one of his own race (Hening, vol. iv, p. 327). When 
giving evidence against one of their own race negroes took the oath 
and testified as whites. The following entry appears in the St. Louis 
Coroners Inquest Record for 1836 : " Spencer a colored man after 
being duly sworn on his oath said that on Wednesday ... he saw 
a colored boy belonging to I. A. Fletcher throw a brick bat and 
strike the above named William on the head . . . 12th day of April, 
1830, John Andrews, Coroner" (MS. Record of Coroners' Inquests, 
City of St. Louis, 1822-1839, not paged). 

»s £r" I- Hol ? ornbe > History of Marion County, Missouri, p. 239. 
• Marr v. Hill & Hayes, 10 Mo., 320. Also, Wadlow v. Perry- 
mans, Admr., 27 Mo., 279. 

74 7 Mo., 190. 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 



77 



The court in 1855 took a very peculiar view of the law 
in accepting a slave's evidence against himself which rend- 
ered his master liable to damages. In this instance the 
action was brought against the owner for a larceny com- 
mitted by his slave. The latter's declaration as to the where- 
abouts of stolen goods, in connection with the fact that 
the goods were actually found in the place mentioned, 
was held by the supreme court to be admissible as evi- 
dence. 75 Thus it appears to be a point of fact rather than 
testimony. Had the stolen property not been found, the 
court seems to imply that the negro's evidence would not 
have been accepted. Whatever may have been the means 
by which slave evidence was admitted, it is certain that it 
was occasionally accepted and at the expense of the master 
or other whites. 

By the Missouri practice the slave was also protected 
from cruelty in forcing evidence from him. In one case 
where a slave testified against himself it was held that a con- 
fession extorted by pain was not to be admitted as evi- 
dence. 70 Here the court declared plainly that " it is settled 
that confessions induced by the flattery of hope or terror of 
punishment, are not admissible as evidence." 77 

In the early period procedure in slave indictments for 
misdemeanors was similar to that of the whites. Later the 

75 Fackler v. Chapman, 20 Mo., 249. 

76 Hector v. The State, 2 Mo., 135. 

77 Hawkins v. The State, 7 Mo., 190. It is interesting to note that 
the division of the whole Methodist Church largely revolved about 
the point of admitting negro evidence in a church trial in Missouri. 
In 1840 the Reverend Silas Comfort appealed to the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Church from a decision of the Missouri 
Conference which had adjudged him guilty of maladministration in 
admitting the testimony of colored members against a white. On 
May 17 the General Conference of 1840 rejected a resolution con- 
firming the Missouri decision. The following day Mr. I. Vt 

of Georgia introduced the following resolution, which was adopted 
by a vote of 74 to 46: " Resolved, That it is inexpedient and mjusti- 
fiable for any preacher among us to permit colored persons to give 
testimony against white persons in any state where they are denied 
that privilege in trials at law." Bad feeling resulted, and by the 
next general conference the church was ripe for a division. 1 lie 
question of the right of bishops and preachers to hold slaves was 
the rock upon which the church split (J. M. Buckley, History of 
Methodism in the United States, vol. 11, p. 12). 



y8 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

practice was modified. A law of 1825 required that a bond- 
man should be taken before the circuit court for serious 
offences. 78 Six years later the justice court was given 
jurisdiction over thefts amounting to less than twenty- 
dollars. If the master so requested, the offending slave 
was to be given a jury trial. The punishment for either a 
misdemeanor or a theft could be fixed by the justice, the 
maximum penalty being thirty-nine lashes. 79 The justice 
court was the tribunal to which the slave was haled for 
most of his offences. In many respects the procedure re- 
sembled that of the old English market court of " Pied 
poudre." As the justice of the peace was not required to 
keep permanent records, it is not possible to gain a very 
close view of the procedure or of negro punishment. The 
county circuit court records contain many accounts of slaves 
tried for the more serious crimes. 

The owner was responsible for the depredations com- 
mitted by his negro as for injury done by his other live 
stock. The liability of the master was the cause of con- 
siderable legislation and was continually brought before the 
courts. A law of 1824 made the owner, or the employer in 
case the slave was hired out at the time of the trespass, 
responsible for his injury to trees, crops, and other forms of 
property. 80 In 1830 a statute limited this liability to the 
value of the offending slave. 81 

The slave naturally differed from other forms of property 
in the point of the responsibility of the owner in that, being 
human, he had his abettors and his colleagues in crime, both 

7S Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 790. 

79 Session Laws, 1830, p. 35. In 1853 the supreme court of Mis- 
souri held that this statute did not provide for an appeal in cases 
of petit larceny (The State v. Joe, 19 Mo., 223). 

80 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 781, sec. 4. The owner was also 
responsible if his slave fired the prairie or forest with his knowledge 
(ibid., p 798, sec. 4). These provisions were both reenacted in 
Kevised Laws, 1835, p. 612, sec. 5 ; p. 624, sec. 4. 

1 Session Laws, 1830, p. 35. In 1859 a law was passed making a 
person hiring a slave from a party not a resident of the State respon- 
sible for any trespass, felony, or misdemeanor committed by such 
slave (bession Laws, 1858, p. 90, sec. 2). 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 



79 



white and black. In reversing a lower decision in 1855 it 
was held that if the slaves of several persons united in com- 
mitting larceny, the owner of one of the negroes so offending 
would be liable for the damages committed by all. 82 

Although the old Spanish practice held to the contrary, 88 
the supreme court declared in 1837 that a master was 
not liable if his slave killed the negro of another. The 
court here held that the law did not provide for injury to 
that form of property by a slave, 84 but this does not mean 
that the slave was mere property. That the slave was 
punished for injuring another slave, although the master 
was relieved of pecuniary responsibility, is learned from an 
issue of the Liberty Tribune of 1848: "The black man of 
Mr. J. D. Ewing of this county [Clay], charged with the 
murder of Mr. Robert Thompson's black man, had his trial 
on Monday last and was sentenced to receive 39 lashes and 
transported out of the State." 85 

The Indian slave occupied an entirely different position 
from that of the negro. Although feared as a race, the In- 
dians were socially never under the ban as were the 
Africans. Conscious and legal as well as clandestine sexual 
relations existed in the Mississippi Valley, especially where 
the French settled. The French " voyageurs " mingled with 
the natives and produced a mixed race, but as slaves they 
seem to have come under the regular servile law. " Indian 
slaves," says Scharf, "it is obvious were treated and regarded 
as negro slaves were, with the difference, however, that more 
Indians than negroes were manumitted. Many of the en- 

82 Fackler v. Chapman, 20 Mo., 249. In 1857 a master was held 
not to be responsible if his slave fired a stable and thereby injured 
a horse belonging to a third party not the owner of the stable 
(Stratton v. Harriman, 24 Mo., 324). This opinion reaffirmed the 
decision of the lower court, and it was again reaffirmed in Armstrong 
v. Marmaduke, 31 Mo., 327. . . 

83 For the responsibility of the master for injury done by his 
slave to that of another during the Spanish regime see F. L. Billon, 
Annals of St. Louis, vol. i, pp. 58-60. 

84 Jennings v. Kavanaugh, 5 Mo., 36. , 

S5 Quoted from an October issue of 1848 in the History of Uay 
and Platte Counties, p. 140. The date of issue is not given. 



80 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

slaved women were probably the concubines of their masters, 
and were set free, because they had borne them children." 86 

The enslavement of Indians had nearly disappeared in 
the Eastern States before the cession of Louisiana, although 
the practice still existed in a modified form. 87 In the 
Mississippi Valley there was also a continuous opposition to 
the bondage of the Indian, but the custom could not easily 
be prevented in such an extensive region so far from the 
home government. Intertribal wars led to the sale of cap- 
tives rather than to their execution, and the natural thirst 
of the Indian for liquor and his weakness for gaming placed 
before the whites a most lucrative traffic which they could 
not always forego. 

As early as 1720 Bienville forbade the enslavement of the 
natives along the Missouri and the Arkansas rivers who had 
been taken in war by the " voyageurs " upon pain of the 
forfeiture of their goods. 88 In 1769 Governor O'Reilley 
also forbade the practice, but nevertheless it continued. 89 
As late as 1828 it was declared by the Missouri supreme 



86 J. T. Scharf, History of Saint Louis City and County, vol. i, 
p. 304- On December 26, 1774, St. Ange de Bellerive bequeathed 
three Indian slaves, a mother and two children, to his niece, Madame 
Bele&tre; the mother was to be freed at the death of Madame 
Belestre and the children when twenty years of age (MS. St. Louis 
Archives, vol. iii, p. 289). 

87 J. C. Ballagh, A History of Slavery in Virginia, p. 50. The 
practice was prohibited by implication in 1691 and in 1777. There 
werejestiges of it, however, as late as 1806. 

88 " La Compagnie ayant appris que les voyageurs, qui vont traiter 
sur les rivieres du Missouri et des Akansas, taschent de semer la 
division entre les nations sauvages et de les porter a se faire la 
guerre pour se procurer des esclaves qu'ils achettent, ce qui non 
seulement est contraire aux ordonnances du Roy, mais encore tres 
prejudiciable au bien du commerce de la Compagnie et aux estab- 
lissemens qu'elle s'est propose de faire audit pays, elle a ordonne et 
ordonne par la presente au sieur de Bourmont, commandant . . . de 
faire arrester, confisquer les marchandises des voyageurs qui vien- 
dront traiter dans l'estendue de son commandement, sans prendre sa 
permission et sans luy declarer les nations avec lesquelles ils ont 
dessein de commercer. — Mande la compagnie au sieur Lemoyne de 
Bienville, commandant general de la colonic" October 25, 1720 
(quoted by P. Margry, Decouvertes et Etablissements Des Frangais 
Dans L'ouest et dans Le Sud de L'Amerique Septentrionale, vol. vi, 
P- 3i6). 

89 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i, p. 380. 



THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 8 I 

court that " Indians taken captive in war, prior to 1769, by 
the French, and held or sold as slaves, in the province of 
Louisiana, while the same was held by the French [are] 
. . . lawful slaves, and if females, their descendants like- 
wise." 90 Six years later the same court repassed on this 
case. Two of the three judges decided that the holding of 
Indians as slaves was not lawful in Louisiana under either 
France or Spain. 91 Thus Indian slavery passed away in 
Missouri. It was already practically extinct, as little or no 
mention of it is made after the American occupation. 

90 Marguerite v. Chouteau, 2 Mo., 59. 

91 Marguerite v. Chouteau, 3 Mo., 375. Judge Wash dissented. 
An historical discussion of Indian servitude can be found in this 
decision. 



CHAPTER III 
The Social Status of the Slave 

In discussing the social relations of the slave it is difficult 
to escape being commonplace. Many points in the every- 
day experience of the negro have been incidentally touched 
in the preceding pages of this study. The ordinary life of 
the slave was very similar to that of the negro of today in 
so far as it was affected by temperament and inclination, 
hence it will be the endeavor of this chapter to deal simply 
with the more vital points of slave existence, mentioning 
only a few of the numerous items gathered on the different 
phases of the subject. 

A question which caused much concern both to the slave- 
holder and to his antislavery critic was the education of the 
slave and of the free negro. After the different servile 
insurrections many of the eastern slave States enforced 
more rigidly old laws or passed new ones forbidding the 
teaching of the slaves. This was done largely to prevent 
the negroes from reading the abolition literature then being 
sent South. 1 Missouri, however, was less subject to social 
than to political or financial hysteria. Never having a slave 
population equal to more than a fifth of the total, being far 
from the insurrections to the east and south, and each master 
averaging so few negroes, Missouri seems not to have been 
affected by the movements which concerned so many of 

1 Commenting on the North Carolina law of 1830 which prohib- 
ited the teaching of the slaves to read and write, J. S. Bassett says: 
" This law was no doubt intended to meet the danger from the cir- 
culation of incendiary literature; yet it is no less true that it bore 
directly on the slave's religious life. It cut him off from the read- 
ing of the Bible — a point most insisted on by the agitators of the 
North. . . . The only argument made for this law was that if a 
slave could read he could soon become acquainted with his rights " 
("Slavery in the State of North Carolina," in J. H. U. Studies, 
series xvii, p. 365). 

82 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 83 

the slave States. She did not change her law in common 
with them, although much of it was originally copied from 
Kentucky and Virginia. 

When the Missouri country passed into the hands of the 
United States, education among the old French settlers was 
at a very low point, and undoubtedly the condition of their 
slaves was worse. As late as 1820, long before a law had 
been passed to prevent the teaching of negroes, a slave who 
could read was something of a novelty. A fugitive is thus 
described in a paper of that year: "Ranaway ... a negro 
man named Peter. ... He pretends to be religious and can 
read a little." 2 Apparently his ability to read was calculated 
to attract attention. 

An apprenticeship law of 1825 relieved the master from 
the duty of teaching negro and mulatto apprentices reading, 
writing, or arithmetic, but " if such apprentice or servant be 
a free negro or mulatto he or she shall be allowed, at the 
expiration of his or her term of service, a sum of money in 
lieu of his education to be assessed by the probate court."* 
This provision seemingly had no reference to masters who 
desired to teach their slaves. In May, 1836, the faculty of 
Marion College forbade their students to instruct "any 
slave to read without the consent of his owner being first 
given in writing." 4 From this statement it is learned that 
the teaching of slaves must have been practiced by some 
masters at least. 

Either to conform to the law and practice in the Southern 
States or because of interference on the part of abolitionists, 
a statute was passed in 1847 which provided that " no person 
shall keep or teach any school for the instruction of any 
negroes or mulattoes, in readi ng or writing in this State " 

2 St. Louis Enquirer, June 14, 1820. 

3 Session Laws, 1825. P- 133, sec. 5- . . <;. . prv c nr ; etv 
^ Fourth Annual Report (1837) of American Anti-Sla Z October' 

p. 81. The Reverend J. M. Peck wrote from St. Charles '" Octob" 
t8 2 < • " I am hannv to find among the slave holders in Missouri a 

Mason Peck, p. 210). 



84 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

under a penalty of five hundred dollars or not more than 
six months' imprisonment or both. 5 This statute was 
broken by indulgent masters and their families. " Many of 
us," says a prominent citizen of Lafayette County, " taught 
our niggers to read despite the law, but many of them re- 
fused to learn." 6 A colored educator of St. Louis asserts 
that Catholic sisters in that city often taught illegitimate 
colored girls, while free colored women, under the guise of 
holding sewing classes, taught negro children to read. 
Sometimes slave diildren slipped into these classes. Such 
a school was carried on by a Mrs. Keckley (colored) of 
St. Louis. 7 

As will be seen later, rigorous laws, increasing in severity 
in proportion to the activity of free-state neighbors in assist- 
ing slaves to escape, were passed to prevent negro as- 
semblages, whether religious or social. 8 Nevertheless the 
patriarchal Missouri system fostered the religious instruc- 
tion of the slave. The antebellum frontiersman was very 
religious and very orthodox, and the newspapers, the public 
speeches, and even the journals of the General Assembly 
abound in expressions of deep fervor. It was not a busy 
industrial society, and outside of St. Louis and a few other 
sections the liberal alien was as yet hardly known. The 
northern clergy with their developing unitarianism were 
abhorred. The master and the mistress and even the chil- 
dren considered themselves personally responsible for the 
spiritual welfare of the slave. In the rural sections the 
bondman usually attended his master's church. 9 " In the 
old Liberty Baptist church the servants occupied the north- 
east corner. After the whites had partaken of the Com- 
munion the cup was passed to the slaves," says a con- 

5 Session Laws, 1846, p. 103, sees. 1, 5. 

6 Captain Joseph A. Wilson. 

7 Statement of Professor Peter H. Clark. 

8 Pages 170-181. 

I " Uncle" Peter Clay of Liberty stated that he went to the Baptist 
Church because his master did, but that after the War he joined 
the Methodist Church "because the Nothen Methdists stood foh 
freedom from slavery an freedom from sin." 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 85 

temporary. 10 Very often the negroes were placed in the 
gallery. William Brown, a fugitive Missouri slave, declares 
that the slaves were instructed in religion at the owner's 
expense as a means of making them faithful to their masters 
and content in their state of servitude. He admits, how- 
ever, that the owner really had a pious desire to give his 
negroes Christian training. 11 The restriction on negro 
preachers will be treated later. 12 

The statistics given of the various churches include the 
free colored along with the slaves, and hence are of little 
value in obtaining an idea of slave membership. In St. 
Louis, where there was a large free negro population, both 
classes seem to have attended the same Churches, one 
colored minister, the Reverend Richard Anderson, having 
a flock of one thousand, " fully half of whom were free." 13 
The other half must necessarily have been slaves. The St. 
Louis Directory of 1842 mentions two colored churches, 
each having a pastor. 14 Another negro church, organized 
in 1858, had seventy-five members. 15 That slaves, whether 
Protestant or Catholic, were often very devout is indicated 
by numerous touching accounts. 16 

10 Statement of Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty. " Uncle " Eph 
Sanders of Platte City said that the slaves had a corner in the 
Baptist Church in that town and partook of the Sacrament after 
the whites and from the same cup. 

11 Pp. 36, 83. A traveller passing through Independence in 1852 
heard a negro preacher say in a sermon, "It is the will of God that 
the blacks are to be slaves ... we must bear our fate." This 
writer heard that the blacks believed that bad negroes became mon- 
keys in the next world, while the good ones became white and grew 
wings (J. Froebel, Seven Years Travel in Central America ... and 
the Far West of the United States, p. 220). 

12 Page 180. 

13 Anderson, p. 12. 

14 These were the Reverend John Anderson. Methodist, Green and 
Seventh Streets, and the Reverend J. Berry Meachum, Baptist, South 
Fifth Street (p. vi). 

15 Scharf, vol. ii, p. 1697. . . . 

16 The Reverend Timothy Flint, a Presbyterian missionary, states 
that in September, 1816, he celebrated Communion at St. Charles. 
On that occasion a "black servant of a Catholic Frenchman run- 
ning in, fell on his knees and partook of the Sacrament with pas- 
sionate devotion (Recollections of the Last Ten Years in the Valley 
of the Mississippi, p. 112). 



86 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The relations between the old French inhabitants of 
Missouri and their slaves were very close. The Catholic 
church was the special guardian of the bondman. It was 
very common for the white mistress to stand as sponsor for 
the black babe at its baptism, or for the slave mother to act 
as godmother to the master's child. 17 The following entry 
may be read in the records of the St. Louis Cathedral : " On 
the thirtieth October 1836, I baptized William Henry, six 
weeks old, and John, six years old, both slaves belonging to 
Mr. H. O'Neil, born of Mary, likewise Slave belonging to 
Mr. H. O'Neil, Sponsors were Henry Guibord and Mary 
O'Neil. Jos. A. Lutz." 18 

The Catholic church considered slavery as a part of the 
patriarchal life of the old French settlements. The growth 
of the country, however, soon commercialized the system, 
the French families becoming as prone to slave-dealing as 
were the newcomers. One has but to examine the probate 
records of the older counties to realize this fact. The 
Catholic clergy themselves often held slaves whom they did 
not govern very strictly. Some of the religious orders in- 
herited negroes, 19 and in i860 St. Louis University paid 
taxes on six slaves. 20 



17 Father D. S. Phelan of St. Louis said that he officiated at such 
baptisms. " The relations between the master's family and the slaves 
were close," he said. " I have seen the black and the white child in 
the same cradle, the mistress and the slave mother taking turns 
rocking them." 

18 MS. Records, St. Louis Cathedral, Baptisms 1835-1844, p. 37. 
Scharf counted 945 negro baptisms in Roman Catholic parishes in 
St. Louis up to 1818 (vol. i, p. 171). The present author, in com- 
pany with Father Schiller of the Roman Catholic Cathedral, found 
several entries in the records similar to the above. 

19 Father Phelan stated that he once owned a couple of slaves but 
never knew what became of them. He remembers that the Lazarus 
Priests and other orders were at times bequeathed negroes. 

20 MS. Tax Book, St. Louis, i860, Book P to S, p. 220. Bishops 
Rosati and Kenrick were taxed with no slaves, according to the 
St. Louis tax books covering the years 1842-60. The old Cathedral 
choir of the thirties and forties, led by Judge Wilson Primm, con- 
tained among others "Augustine, a mulatto slave of Bishop Du- 
bourg a fine tenor" (W. C. Breckenridge, "Biographical Sketch 
of Judge Wilson Primm," in Missouri Historical Society Collections, 
vol. iv, no. 2, p. 153). 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 87 

The marriage relation of the slaves was necessarily lax, 
as the right of the owner to separate the parties was a 
corollary of his property right. This was the subject of 
very bitter criticism by antislavery people, as most of the 
churches admitted that the removal of either party sundered 
the marriage bond. A Unitarian minister of St. Louis 
wrote indignantly that " the sham service which the law 
scorned to recognize was rendered by the ministers of the 
gospel of Christ." 21 He also states that a religious cere- 
mony was " according to slavery usage in well regulated 
Christian families." 22 William Brown, a Missouri refugee, 
says that the slaves were married, usually with a ceremony, 
when the owner ordered, but that the parties were separated 
at his will. He declares that he never heard of a slave 
being tried for bigamy. 23 Scharf claims that the official 
registration of a slave marriage was almost unknown in 
St. Louis. 24 

On the other hand, the Catholic church regularly married 
slaves and held the tie to be as sacred as any other marriage. 
The following entry appears in the Cathedral records : " On 
the twenty-fourth of December, Eighteen Hundred and 
twenty-eight the undersigned Parish priest at St. Louis re- 
ceived the mutual consent at Manage between Silvester 
slave of Mr. Bosseron born in St. Louis and Nora Helen 
slave of Mr. Hough born in the city of Washington and 
gave them the nuptial benediction in the presence of the 
undersigned witnesses. Wm. Sautnier." Then follow the 

21 W. G. Eliot, app., p. i. 

22 Ibid., p. 40. 

23 T3 QQ 

"Vol. i, p. 305, note. In the Republican of V^™?. 16 :. 1 *?*- 
there is the oomplaint of a free negress that her Jmsband had taken 
another wife. "As the subject of the second marnage is _a s lave 
and some fears being entertained that he might tak * her °ut of ] me 
state to the injury of the master the City Marshall ""* s °"? f°£« 
officers in search of him and had him arrested Fmanc a I loss 
rather than moral delinquency seems to have been the burden 
interest in this matter. 



88 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804.-1865 

crosses which represent the signatures of Silvester, Nora 
Helen, and four other slaves and one free negro. 25 

Several old slaves were questioned regarding the subject 
of marriage, and their statements show differences in prac- 
tice. One said that he and his wife liked one another, and 
as they both belonged to the same master they " took up " 
or " simply lived together," and that this arrangement was 
the custom and nothing was said. 26 A negro of Saline 
County who was a child in slavery days stated that his 
parents belonged to different persons, and, by the consent 
of both, were married by the squire. The children went to 
the mother's master. After the War they were again 
married in conformity with the new state constitution. 27 
Doubtless the experience of many slave families was similar 
to this last. 

The slave marriage was never recognized by the law, con- 
sequently a statute was passed in 1865 requiring a legal 
marriage of all slaves in the State under a penalty. 28 An 
illustration of the legal position of the old slave marriage is 
best gained from a reading of the case of Johnson v. John- 
son, which was handed down by the state supreme court 
in 1870. Here it was neld that the old slave marriages were 
simply moral agreements and had no legal force whatever. 29 



25 MS. Records, St. Louis Cathedral, Register of Marriages 1828- 
1839, P- 10. Father Phelan stated that Catholics never sold their 
slaves and thus escaped the predicament of severing a Church mar- 
riage. The probate records, however, belie his statement. The 
Chouteaus, Cherries, and other Catholic families bought and sold 
many slaves. 

26 "Uncle" Henry Napper of Marshall. 

27 John Austin of Marshall. 

21 This law reads: "In all cases where persons of color, hereto- 
fore held as slaves in the State of Missouri, have cohabited together 
as husband and wife, it shall be the duty of persons thus cohabiting 
to appear before a justice of the peace of the township where they 
reside, or before any other officer authorized to solemnize mar- 
riages, and it shall be the duty of such officer to join in marriage 
the persons thus applying, and to keep a record of the same." The 
children previously born to such parties were thereby legitimatized. 
A fee of fifty cents was received by the recorder and sent to the one 
who performed the ceremony. Those refusing to be thus married 
W 2o C « t° be . cnminall y prosecuted (Statutes, 1865, ch. 113, sees. 12-16). 
In this State marriage is considered a civil contract," said 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 89 

Crime was existent among the negroes in the slavery 
period, although it is often asserted that the black man has 
degenerated since his emancipation and a mass of revolting 
crimes is cited in evidence. If more crimes are committed 
today than in slavery days, it must be remembered that 
there are three negroes in the South today to one in i860, 
and that a massing of population in towns undoubtedly in- 
creases crime. It was to the financial advantage of the 
master to shield his slave and smother his crimes, while 
today the race problem and race feeling encourage an airing 
of the failings of the blacks. 

While at times the misbehavior of the slave and the free 
negro worked the populace into mob violence, such action 
was of a local and temporary nature. 30 Neither the legisla- 
te court, " to which the consent of the parties capable in law of 
contracting is essential. In none of the States where slavery lately- 
existed did the municipal law recognize the marriage rites between 
slaves. . . . They were responsible for their crimes, but uncondi- 
tional submission to the will of the master was enjoined upon them. 
By common consent and universal usage existing among them, they 
were permitted to select their husbands and wives, and were gener- 
ally married by preachers of their own race, though sometimes by 
white ministers. They were known and recognized as husband and 
wife by their masters and in the community in which they lived; 
but whatever moral force there may have been in such connections, 
it is evident there was nothing binding or obligatory in the laws. . 
The slave, in entering into marriage, did a moral act; and though 
not binding in law it was no violation of any legal duty. If, after 
emancipation, there was no confirmation by cohabitation or other- 
wise, it is obvious that there would be no grounds for holding the 
marriage as subsisting or binding. . . . That in his earlier days he 
was previously married can make no difference. His first marriage 
in his then state of servitude had no legal existence; he was at lib- 
erty to repudiate it at pleasure; and by his continuing to live with 
respondent and acknowledge her as his lawful wife after he had 
obtained his civil rights, he disaffirms his first marriage and ratifies 
the second" (45 Mo., S98). "Uncle" Henry Napper of Marshall 
stated that he knew many negroes who took advantage of the inter- 
pretation of the new statute to leave the neighborhood and marry a 

y0 3 U o n T g n 78 f 5 the governor "unconditionally" pardoned a slave wo- 
man who had been condemned for murder His action caused no 
popular criticism (House Journal [Journa so f the General Assc mbly 
of Missouri House and Senate Journals], 9th Ass., 1st sess., p. 
«Q) But when in 1854 a slave, condemned by the supreme court 
fo? raW a white girl, was pardoned, the Republican of February 7 
t°ateTedi?oria¥y "Ve are It a loss to determine upon what grounds 
the Executive thought proper to exercise his clemency . . . it was 



9 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

tion nor the court decisions seem to have been influenced 
by any crimes on the part of the slaves. Of the two negro 
cases which caused the most feeling, one, the Mcintosh affair 
of 1836, concerned a free negro, and the other, that of 
" Jack " Anderson, was a murder committed by a slave who 
had resided for some time in Canada. 31 Consequently there 
was no such feeling toward the slave as there was through- 
out the period toward the free negro. The Missourian, 
though irritated by political interference with his property 
and bitter against those who sought to carry off his blacks, 
had a rough good humor, and apparently exercised a spirit 
of fairness toward his bondmen. 

The old slave masters without exception declare that the 
system was patriarchal in Missouri and that the bond be- 
tween the owner and the owned was very close. The small 
number of slaves held by the vast majority of the masters 
was one reason for this condition. When the young Vir- 
ginian or Kentuckian and his negroes emigrated to far-off 
Missouri, they suffered in common the pangs of parting, 
and together went to develop the virgin soil amid common 
dangers and common hardships. Thus there undoubtedly 
grew up an attachment that the older communities had long 
since outgrown. 

For the territorial period there is evidence that the rela- 

an outrage of the most flagrant character, and deserved the severest 
punishment." Even this criticism of the court seems very calm con- 
sidering the color of the offender. 

31 Francis Mcintosh, a powerful negro, stabbed two officers who 
were escorting him to prison. He was burned by a St. Louis mob. 
A full account of this event is given in J. F. Darby, Personal Rec- 
ollections of Men and Events in St. Louis, pp. 237-242. See also 
below, p. 117. Anderson had escaped to Canada. While on a visit to 
Missouri to remove his family he was apprehended by Seneca Diggs 
of Howard County, whom he shot (September 24, 1859). This epi- 
sode caused much excitement. His extradition was still pending 
when the Civil War opened, as he had again fled to Canada. On 
March 2.T, 1861, certain citizens of Howard County were petitioning 
for money advanced by them to prosecute Anderson (Session Laws, 
i860, p. 534). There is also a short account of this episode in W. H. 
Siebert. The Underground Railroad from Slavery to Freedom, p. 
352. This affair is discussed, and also the action of the Canadian 
authorities and courts, in the Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the 
American Anti-Slavery Society (1861), pp. 167-170. 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 



91 



tion between the races was friendly. Judge J. C. B. Lucas 
of St. Louis, a man who certainly had no love for the slavery 
system and who in 1820 advocated its restriction, admitted 
this fact. " I confess," he wrote, " that I do not entertain 
very serious apprehension of slaves as domestics . . . they 
are usually treated with a degree of humanity, and not infre- 
quently of paternal affection. The opportunities they have 
to observe the conduct of the master's family, to attend 
public worship, and the satisfaction they receive from enjoy- 
ing in a reasonable degree the comforts of life, generally 
induces them to respect the rights of others and be harm- 
less." 32 

This condition of fellowship between master and man, 
made possible by deep respect on the part of the slave. 
continued on to the Civil War in many rural communities. 
" The Missouri slave holders," said Mr. Robert B. Price of 
Columbia, " were not such through choice. They inherited 
their negroes and felt duty bound to keep them." Colonel 
J. L. Robards of Hannibal stated that his father left him a 
number of slaves to whom he was fondly attached and 
whom he considered as a family trust. Mr. E. W. Strode 
of Independence claims that the negro was closely united 
to the master's family. Mr. Strode stated that his grand- 
father required in his will that the slaves be kept in the 
family, and that they were so held till the Civil War. " The 
children of the master," said Mr. Strode, "played and 
fought with the slave children with due respect, there being 
no need for race distinction." 

The slave not only worshipped at his master's church and 
partook of the same sacraments as his master, but was 
ministered to by the same pastor and attended by the family 
physician. 33 In the quaint little cemetery south of Colum- 

32 Letter in the Missouri Gazette of April 12, 1820. 

33 Although as property the slave was naturally well protected, 
yet the following- item shows how really sincere the master generally 
was in the care of his slaves. This news item appeared in the Mis- 
souri Intelligencer in 1835: "We with pleasure announce for the 
benefit of the public, that on Wednesday last. Dr. William Jewell of 
this Town [Fayette], successfully performed the great operation of 



02 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

bia, where lie William Jewell and Charles H. Hardin, rest 
also the family servants. The latter are buried together 
side by side under small marble markers in the further side 
of the lot. Nothing can give a better impression of the 
strong tie between the slave and his master. This presents 
an idea of the system in its ideal state and under men who 
both intellectually and politically made life brighter in 
Missouri. "My mother," said Mr. R. B. Price, "labored 
incessantly to clothe and nurse our slaves — with no thought 
of any ulterior motive." Thus there is presented a picture 
of the system in the hands of the responsible and the consci- 
entious, but economic pressure, human depravity, and greed 
too often made the picture morbid and disgusting. Herein 
lay the weakness of the system. The comparatively un- 
limited power of the master might be used for the blessing 
of the slave, or for his misery. 

A general view of the condition of the Missouri slave can 
be gained from the recollections of one of the most eminent 
antislavery statesmen of the period, General George R. 
Smith of Sedalia. " The negroes," he wrote, " had Satur- 
day ' evenings ' as the afternoons were called, in which to 
do work for themselves ; and what they made during this 
time they could sell and so get a little money. For money, 
however, they had little need, as they had no opportunities 
for higher life. . . . The masters were usually humane and 
there was often real affection between master and slave — 
very often great kindliness. There were merciful services 
from each to the other: there was laughter, song, and 
happiness in the negro quarters. . . . The old negroes had 
their comfortable quarters, where each family would sit by 
their own great sparkling log fires. . . . They sang their 
plantation songs, grew hilarious over their corn shuckings 
and did the bidding of their gracious master. Their doctor's 

Lithotomy, or cutting for stone in the bladder. . . . The individual 
operated upon by the Doctor was a little yellow boy, about eight 
years of age, the property of Archibald W. Turner, Esq." (quoted 
in the Jeffersonian Republican of May 2, 1835, from an unknown 
issue of the Intelligencer). 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 93 

bills were paid; their clothing bought, or woven by them- 
selves in their cabins, and made by their mistress ; their sick- 
nursed; and their dead laid away, — all without thought 
from themselves." 34 " I was but a lad in slavery days," says 
Mr. Dean D. Duggins of Marshall, " but my recollections of 
the institution are most pleasant. I can remember how in 
the evening at husking time the negroes would come singing 
up the creek. They would work till ten o'clock amidst 
singing and pleasantry and after a hot supper and hard cider 
would depart for their cabins. The servants were very 
careful of the language used before the white children and 
would reprove and even punish the master's children." 30 
" How well I remember those happy days ! " wrote Lucy 
A. Delaney. " Slavery had no horror then for me, as I 
played about the place, with the same joyful freedom as the 
little white Children. With mother, father, and sister, a 
pleasant home and surroundings, what happier child than 

J f "36 

The life of the slave was often made happy by privileges 
which a negro can appreciate as can no one else. Colonel 
R. B. C. Wilson of Platte City says that the happiest hours 
of 'his life were on Saturday afternoons in the slavery days 
when he and the negroes and dogs went tramping through 
the woods for game. The slaves had their dances under 

34 S. B. Harding, Life of George R. Smith, pp. 50-51. As General 
Smith spent his life in Kentucky and Missouri, it may be inferred 
that he here refers to slave life in these States. 

35 Major G W. Lankford of Marshall stated that the old servants 
often made the master's children behave. Captain Joseph A. Wilson 
of Lexington tells the following story: "One day my brother a 
slave girl, and myself were playing with sticks which represented 
river boats. We had seen the boats run past the landing and then 
turn about and land at the dock prow foremost. But the slave girl 
insisted on running her boat in backwards. My mother, who was in 
an adjoining room, soon heard the slave girl give a great howl 
screaming that Henry had slapped her. Henry why did you strike 
that child,' said mother. 'Well, she is always landing stern first 
protested Henry. This anecdote shows how paternal the system 
was in our part of the state. . 

36 Pn Later Lucy Delaney had less humane masters and mis- 
tresses Her book, few copies of which are now extant, gives a 
good picture of slave life £ St. Louis, despite her hostile attitude 
toward the system. 



94 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

regulations and with officers present. The circus was also 
open, occasionally at least, to the slaves, who with the chil- 
dren went in for half price. 37 

The treatment of the negro was seen from various angles 
by contemporaries. One general statement was that "the 
slaves were universally well treated, being considered almost 
as one of the other's family . . . and in all things enjoyed 
life about as much as their masters." 38 Frank Blair, who 
worked for emancipation and colonization throughout his 
career, said in a speech at Boston in 1859 that the Missouri 
slaveholder was kind to his negro. 39 Blair was certainly not 
a man to trim for political purposes by praising slave- 
owners, especially in Boston. Gottfried Duden, who 
visited Missouri in 1824-27, declared that the slave in the 
grain-producing States was well off — as well or better 
situated than the day laborer of Germany. 40 Another Ger- 
man, Prince Maximilian of Wied, who travelled about the 
State in 1832-34, remarked that "though modern travellers 
represent in very favorable colors the situation of this op- 
pressed race, the slaves are no better off here than in other 
countries. Everywhere they are a demoralized race, little to 
be depended upon. . . . We were witnesses of deplorable 
punishments of these people. One of our neighbors at St. 
Louis, for instance, flogged one of his slaves in the public 

37 The following advertisement is found in the St. Joseph Com- 
mercial Cycle of June 29 and July 6, 1855: " E. T. and J. Mabies' 
Grand Combined Menagerie. . . . Admission 50 cents : children and 
servants 25 cts." The word " servant " was applied through the 
South to the negro slave in polite language. In the law, however, 
as in formal language, the word " slave" was used. 

38 H. C. Levens and U. M. Drake, A History of Cooper County, 
Missouri, p. 120. A secondary authority gives a similar picture of 
the happiness and the close relation of the races in the territorial 
period. He even goes so far as to declare that " they [the master 
and his slave] counseled together for the promotion of their mutual 
interests : the slave expressed his opinion ... as freely as his mis- 
tress or master; nor did he often wait to be solicited." No authority 
for this statement is given (D. R. McAnally, A History of Method- 
ism in Missouri, vol. i, pp. 146-147). 

39 F. P. Blair, Jr., The Destiny of the Races of this Continent, p. 25. 

40 Bereicht ueber eine Reise nach den Westlichen Staaten Nord- 
amerika's, p. 146. 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 95 

streets, with untiring arm. Sometimes he stopped a 
moment to rest, and then began anew." 41 

The physical punishment of the slave was the joint of 
antislavery attack, and was undoubtedly an often abused 
necessity on the part of the owner. " We treated our 
slaves with all humanity possible considering that discipline 
had to be maintained," said Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty. 
It has always been argued that corporal suasion alone could 
influence a creature as primitive as the slave. The law for- 
bade unnecessary cruelty to slaves and public sentiment 
opposed it. The Reverend William G. Eliot, though having 
very decided antislavery views, stated that " the treatment 
of slaves in Missouri was perhaps exceptionally humane. 
All cruelty or ' unnecessary ' severity was frowned upon by 
the whole community. The general feeling was against 
it." 42 Another antislavery clergyman, the Reverend 
Galusha Anderson, said that the St. Louis slaves were 
mostly well treated, but that he knew of several notorious 
cases of bad treatment. 43 Those who had no sympathy with 
the system easily found much that was revolting. 44 Reports 
coming from such sources make no mention of the benefits 
which partly counterbalanced the evils. 

Exact knowledge of the treatment of the slave is difficult 
to reach. A wide difference of opinion is found even among 



4i " Travels in the Interior of America," in R. G. Thwaites, Early 
Western Travels, vol. xxii, p. 216. 

42 W. G. Eliot, p. 39. He mentions several cases of very cruel 
treatment that he observed (ibid., pp. 39. 91-94. 101-103). 

43 P. 170. , .. 

44 Brown, pp. 28-38. He dwells upon several very disgusting 
instances which he witnessed as a Missouri slave. Dr. John Doy 
gives several tales of cruelty which he both saw and heard while a 
prisoner at Platte City and St. Joseph (pp. 61-62, 94-99. 102-103). 
The American Anti-Slavery Society tract, "American Slavery as It 
Is (1839)," is rich in revolting tales, and contains several accounts 
of events which it claims took place in Missouri (pp. 71, 8JR5Q, 127, 
158). A Virginia slaveholder on his way to Kansas where he later 
joined a company of Southern Rangers, stopped in Missouri for a 
few weeks. He prevented a mule dealer named Watson from beat- 
ing his negro with a chain. "If he had not been , checked when he 
was so mad, he might have killed the poor darkey, and nothing 
would have been thought of it" (Williams, p. 09). 



g6 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

contemporaries living in the same locality. Colonel D. C. 
Allen of Liberty asserted that he had never witnessed any 
instances of bad treatment, while " Uncle " Eph Sanders, an 
old Platte County slave, stated that for every kind master 
there were two brutes who drove their negroes as they did 
their mules. " But my own master," said " Uncle " Eph, 
" was very good. The slaves were treated about like his 
own family. He allowed no one to mistreat us and hated 
the hard masters of the neighborhood." As it would be im- 
possible to reduce the matter to mathematical exactitude, we 
must be content to generalize from the particular instances 
given. 45 

Self-interest naturally prevented treatment that was severe 
enough to affect the slave physically, except in the case of 
an owner blind to all sense of his own advantage. Captain 
J. A. Wilson of Lexington, a man of clear insight and one 
who saw the evils as well as the good in the system, says : 
" There was not much public whipping. It was an event 
which attracted a crowd and was thought worthy of com- 
ment. It made the slave resentful, if he was innocent, and 
but hardened him if he was guilty. If a slave bore the scars 
of the lash his sale would be difficult. In Lafayette county 
ill treatment of the slave was condemned. William Ish 
killed one of his slaves with a chisel for not working to suit 
him. The public sentiment was bitter against him. He 
spent a fortune to escape the penitentiary." J. B. Tinsley 
of Audrain County threatened to prosecute the patrol for 
whipping one of his slaves. 46 A slave was once whipped 
by the patrol as he was returning at night from the livery 
stable in Lexington where he was hired. The hirer sued 
the patrol, as the negro was on legitimate business. 47 From 

45 Anice Washington of St. Louis said : " Some slaves were very- 
bad and they deserved to be whipped. My master once struck me 
when I was a girl and I have the scar on my wrist yet. I refused 
to go and get the cows when he ordered. I was owned by two 
masters. One treated me much better than the other, but he was 
better off." 



4(5 Statement of Mr. J. W. Beatty of Mexico. 
47 "Uncle" Peter Clay of Liberty. 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 



97 

con- 



what could be learned the slaves, while by no means 
sidered as equals or comrades, were very jealously guarded 
by their masters. Missouri was so surrounded by free 
territory that it was necessary to keep the negro in as good 
humor as possible. 

The punishment of the slave for indolence, sedition, and 
other forms of misconduct was largely left to the master. 
The State punished the negro for crime, but could hardly 
be expected to enforce the master's personal demands upon 
him. However, in some cases the public took an interest 
in the matter. An ordinance of Jefferson City permitted 
owners having " refractory " slaves to require an officer to 
give them "reasonable punishment." The constable or 
other official so whipping the slave was to receive for his 
services fifty cents, which was collectable as were his other 
fees. 48 

The amount of labor required of the slave has already 
been considered. 49 Some were undoubtedly cruelly worked. 
William Brown, a slave who lived on a tobacco and hemp 
plantation " thirty or forty miles above St. Charles on the 
Missouri River," says that the slaves were given ten stripes 
with a loaded whip if not in the fields at four-thirty in the 
morning, and that their wounds were washed with salt 
water or rum. 50 This may be a true account, but it was ex- 
ceptional. However, other cases of long hours have been 
found. Anice Washington stated that while a slave in 
Madison County she went to the fields at four, and after 
supper spun or knit till dark. " We had dinner at noon of 
meat and bread with greens or other vegetables in summer, 
and bread and milk for supper. While in St. Francis 
county I did not have enough to eat." "I had a good 
master," said a Saline County slave, " and had plenty to eat. 
We had three meals a day— bacon, cabbage, potatoes, 

48 Mandatory Ordinance relative to the City Police, and to Pre- 
vent and Restrain the Meeting of Slaves, of June i6, 1836. sec. 5 
(Jeffersonian Republican, June 25, 1836). 

49 Above, pages 26-27. 
" 50 Pp. 14, 20-24. 

7 



98 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

turnips, beans, and some times molasses, coffee, and sugar. 
We also had milk and some times butter. We got a little 
whiskey at harvest. We were in the field before sun-up 
but were not worked severely. One of the neighboring 
farmers had a lot of slaves and he was a hard man. He 
shoved 'em through. We had another neighbor who un- 
mercifully whipped his slaves if they shirked." 51 A Platte 
County slave declared that he had a good master and had 
plenty to eat and wear. " We were given liquor in harvest 
and had no Saturday afternoon nor Sunday work. Christ- 
mas week was also a holiday. But all slaves were not 
treated so well. I have seen mothers go to the field and 
leave their babies with an old negress. They could go to 
them three times during the day." 52 This negro's wife 
stated that she was once hired out by her mistress, and often 
had only sour rice and the leavings of biscuits to eat. 
"Uncle" Peter Clay of Liberty said that he was well 
enough fed and was given whiskey at harvest, corn shuck- 
ing, and Christmas time. 

Although bitterly opposed to slavery, the abolitionist, 
George Thompson, in order to prove that the negro was 
capable of making his own way, stated that while a prisoner 
in the Palmyra jail in 1841 he saw slaves who were cer- 
tainly anything but oppressed. " The slaves here, on the 
Sabbaths, dress like gentlemen. They get their clothes by 
extra work, done on the Sabbaths and in the night, and yet 
they can't take care of themselves. Shame on those who 
hide under this leaf." 53 The War brought no immediate 
relief to many of the slaves, as the reports of the Western 
Sanitary Commission show. " At one time an order was 

61 Henry Napper of Marshall. Thomas Summers of Cape Gi- 
rardeau lived near Jackson in slavery days. " I was never exposed 
in such weather nor worked so hard while a slave as since I have 
been free," he said, " but I would rather be free and eat flies than 
be a slave on plenty." His mistress made the clothes of the slaves 
and they were well fed. He remembered few slaves being cruelly 
used in the county. 

52 Eph Sanders of Platte City. 

53 P. 42. 



THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE 



99 



issued forbidding their payment [for excavating, teaming, 
and other camp work] on the ground that their master 
would have a claim against the Government for their 
services. All the while they were compelled to do most of 
the hard work of the place [St. Louis] and press gangs 

were sent out to take them in the streets Sometimes they 

were shot down and murdered with impunity. They were 
often driven with their families into 'Camp Ethiopia' with 
only cast off army tents to shield them. At one time an 
order was issued driving them out of the Union lines and 
into the hands of their old masters." 64 

So much has been written on the life of the slave, and so 
much of this has been argumentative, that little more than a 
brief sketch of the everyday life of the slave has been 
attempted here. 

54 Rev. J. G. Forman, The Western Sanitary Commission (1864), 
pp. 111-112. 



CHAPTER IV 
The Slavery Issue in Politics and in the Churches 

The motives behind the fight for statehood in Missouri 
during the years 1 8 19-21 have been discussed by several 
writers. 1 The opinion of the majority of authorities on 
this subject is that the sentiment of Missouri in 1819 shifted 
from the old Jefrersonian dislike of slavery, or at least from 
a cold support of the system, to an avowed proslavery posi- 
tion. This change of attitude is said to have been caused 
by the attack of the northern representatives in Congress 
on Missouri's efforts to secure statehood, this northern op- 
position being based on avowed hostility to slavery exten- 
sion. This is the orthodox view, and it is held by those who 
declare that the South at heart had no great solicitude for 
slavery till northern interference pricked her pride. At first 
glance this appears plausible, but a closer inspection of the 
materials relating to the period shows this opinion to be 
both superficial and unreasonable. 

The people of Missouri were in favor of slavery from the 
earliest days of its existence as a Territory. Even before 
Missouri became a Territory her citizens had what appears 
to have been more than a mere nominal attachment to " the 
peculiar institution." On January 4, 1805, the settlers about 

1 F. H. Hodder, " Side Lights on the Missouri Compromises," in 
American Historical Association Reports, 1909, pp. 151-161 ; L. Carr, 
Missouri : A Bone of Contention, ch. vi, vii ; F. C. Shoemaker, The 
First Constitution of Missouri. The author of the present study 
treated this point briefly in his " Slavery in Missouri Territory," in 
Missouri Historical Review, vol. iii, no. 3, pp. 196-197. Governor 
Amos Stoddard in discussing slavery in Louisiana refers rather to 
the system as he viewed it on the lower Mississippi. Speaking of the 
slave States as a whole he says : " Their feelings, and even their 
prejudices, are entitled to respect; and a system of emancipation 
cannot be contrived with too much caution" (Sketches Historical 
and Descriptive of Louisiana, p. 342). 

100 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES 10 1 

St. Louis protested warmly at being joined to the Indiana 
Territory under the title of "The District of Louisiana." 
Their pride was touched and their grievances were many, 
but of all their complaints the fear for their slave property 
seems to have been one of the most weighty. Their 
memorial to Congress reads as follows : " Slaves cannot 
exist in the Indiana Territory, and slavery prevails in 
Louisiana, and here your petitioners must beg leave to ob- 
serve to your honorable Houses, that they conceive their 
property of every description has been warranted to them 
by the treaty between the United States and the French 
Republic. ... Is not the silence of Congress with respect to 
slavery in the District of Louisiana, and the placing of this 
district under the government of a territory where slavery 
is proscribed, calculated to alarm the people with respect to 
that kind of property, and to create the presumption of a 
disposition in Congress, to abolish at some future day 
slavery altogether in the District of Louisiana?" Again 
they claimed that the treaty warranted " the free possession 
of our slaves, and the right of importing slaves into the 
District of Louisiana, under such restrictions as to Congress 
in their Wisdom will appear necessary." 2 

This last statement at least was no mere attempt to con- 
serve existing property, but was an open desire to import 
blacks. The full force of the slavery issue, however, did 
not develop till the struggle for statehood opened. Peti- 
tions to this end are said to have been signed by citizens of 
Missouri Territory as early as 1817. 3 Apparently no men- 
tion of slavery was made in them. On January 8, 1818, the 

2 Representation and petition of the representatives elected by the 
Freemen of the territory of Louisiana. 4th January, 1805. Pp. 11-12, 
22. This original printed petition is in the Library of Congress. 
The text of the petition can also be found in American State Papers, 
Miscellaneous, vol. i, pp. 400-405. One petition was signed Septem- 
ber 29, and another September 30, 1804, at St Louis (ibid.). 

3 L. Houck mentions one which was circulated in 1817 and was 
presented in 1818 (History of Missouri, vol. 111, pp. 243-245). bchart 
quotes the Missouri Gazette of October n. 1817, as stating that a 
memorial praying for statehood was being circulated (vol. 1, p. SMi 
note). 



102 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

speaker of the House of Representatives " presented a peti- 
tion from sundry inhabitants of the Territory of Missouri 
praying that the said Territory may be admitted into the 
Union; on an equal footing with the original States." 4 
John Scott, the territorial delegate, presented several simi- 
larly described papers on February 2 and March 16, 1818. 5 
There is in the Library of Congress a printed petition signed 
by sixty-eight Missourians. It is not dated and makes no 
mention of slavery, though it deals extensively with ter- 
ritorial needs and abuses. 6 

That the Missouri of 1820 really had considerable slave 
property to fight for is evident. Between 1810 and 1820 the 
slave population of the Territory had grown from 301 1 to 
io,222. 7 That this gain was not simply the natural increase 
of the negroes of the old French settlers is learned from 
many sources. An item in the Missouri Gazette of October 
26, 1 81 6, says that " a stranger to witness the scene would 
imagine that Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Caro- 
linas had made an agreement to introduce us as soon as 
possible to the bosom of the American family. Every ferry 
on the river is daily occupied in passing families, carriages, 
wagons, [and] negroes." The same paper on June 9, 1819, 
gives the following report from St. Charles : " Never has 
such an influx of people . . . been so considerable, . . . flow- 
ing through our town with their maid servants and men 
servants . . . the throng of hogs and cattle, the whiteheaded 
children, and curlyheaded Africans." Another item in the 
same issue states that " 170 emigrants were at the Portage 
des Sioux at one time last week." The papers for nearly 
every week from the above date are filled with similar state- 
ments. That the newcomers were of the kind to make 

4 Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. i, p. 591. 

5 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 839, 1391. Alphonso Wetmore mentions a Mis- 
souri petition of 1818, but says nothing as to any slavery clauses 
being in it (Gazetteer of the State of Missouri, p. 212). 

6 This petition is in the Manuscripts Division. At least one sig- 
nature has been removed and with it the lower right-hand corner, 
which perhaps also contained the date. It was printed by S. Hall 
of St. Louis. 

7 Federal Census, Statistical View, 1790-1830, p. 27. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES IO3 

Missouri a slave State there is no trouble in discovering. 
The St. Louis Enquirer of November 19, 1819, informs us 
that a citizen of St. Charles counted for nine or ten weeks 
an average of one hundred and twenty settlers' vehicles per 
week, with an average of eighteen persons per vehicle. 
" They came," it continues, " almost exclusively from the 
States south of the Potomac and the Ohio bringing slaves 
and large herds of cattle." The Gazette of January 26, 
1820, states that "our population is daily becoming more 
heterogenious [sic] . . . scarcely a Yankee has moved into 
the country this year. At the same time Virginians, Caro- 
linians, Tennesseeans, and Kentuckians are moving in great 
force." The St. Louis Enquirer of November 10, 1819, 
claims that in October of that year two hundred and 
seventy-one four-wheeled and fifty-five two-wheeled vehicles 
passed " Mrs. Griffith's in the point of the Missouri," bound 
for Boone's Lick, and speculates that from ten to fifteen 
thousand people would settle in Missouri during the autumn. 
Timothy Flint, a New England clergyman, counted a hun- 
dred persons passing through St. Charles in one day. " I 
have seen . . . nine wagons, harnessed with from four to six 
horses. We may allow one hundred cattle . . . and from 
three or four to twenty slaves to each wagon. The slaves 
seem fond of their masters." 8 

This change in the character of the population is reflected 
in the personnel of the constitutional convention of 1820. 
According to one partisan paper there was not "a single 
confessed restrictionist elected." 9 At Mine a Burton the 

8 P. 201. 

9 St. Louis Enquirer, May 10, 1820. Benjamin Emmons of St. 
Charles is rumored to have been the only antislavery man in the 
convention. Vermont and New York are both said to have been 
his native State. If Emmons was marked as the only emancipa- 
tionist in the convention, it is strange that he had the confidence of 
his fellow members to such an extent as he did. He was actually 
placed on the most important committee, considering the slavery 
agitation of the time— the legislative committee, which drafted the 
slavery sections of the new constitution (ibid., June 14, I g 20 )- Em- 
mons was later elected to the state Senate, and at a St. Charles 
mass-meeting of December 19, 1821, he was made chairman (lne 
Missourian, January 24, 1822). Emmons was a tavern keeper, and 
his advertisement may be seen in the above issue. 



104 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

" Manumission Men" were beaten by 1147 to 61 votes, 10 at 
St. Louis by about 3 to i, 11 and in Cape Girardeau County 
by 4 to 3. 12 It therefore appears that this influx of new- 
comers had brought into the Territory many who had 
financial or hereditary reasons for favoring slavery. A 
letter of Judge J. B. C. Lucas of St. Louis, written October 
27, 1820, confirms the fact that slavery was the basis, at 
least to a considerable extent, of the local struggle against 
restriction. " I was a candidate," wrote Judge Lucas, " for 
the state convention. I did not succeed because being re- 
quested to declare my sentiments on the subject of slavery, 
I expressed an opinion that it would be proper to limit the 
importation of slaves to five years or a short period from 
the date of the Constitution . . . the ardent friends of 
slavery, in all its extent and attributes, charged me, or 
suspected me to be hostile to the principles altogether, and 
contended that I dare not go the whole length of my opinion, 
knowing it to be unpopular. In fact I was called an eman- 
cipator and this is the worst name that can be given in the 
state of Missouri." 13 Judge Lucas also stated that as he 
was known to oppose the Spanish land claims these claim- 
ants, in order to procure his defeat — in which object they 
succeeded — spread the report that he opposed slavery. 14 If 
such an issue was raised to defeat a candidate, St. Louis at 
least must have been strongly proslavery in sentiment in 
1820, but it was not the "Lawyer Junto" of that city alone 
which had this feeling, as will be seen later. It seems hardly 
possible that the hardheaded frontiersmen with their ten 
thousand slaves would thunder at Congress for two years 
on an abstract question of constitutional equality. 15 

10 St. Louis Enquirer, May 10, 1820. 

11 Missouri Gazette, May 20, 1820. 

12 St. Louis Enquirer, May 31, 1820. 

13 Lucas to Robert Moore (J. B. C. Lucas, Jr., comp., Letters of 
Hon. J. B. C. Lucas, from 1815 to 1836, pp. 28-29). 

"Lucas to William Lowndes, November 26, 1821 (ibid., p. 158); 
Lucas to Rufus King, November 16, 1821 (ibid., p. 148). 

15 This view is somewhat stronger than that expressed in my 
former study of this period (see note 1 of this chapter). Professor 
Hodder is of the contrary opinion. He states regarding the sweep- 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES 105 

The immigration of southern settlers during the late 
territorial period changed the social complexion of Missouri. 
To this fact can be traced the real cause of the anxiety of 
the people to be admitted as a slave State. This lay at the 
heart of the outcry against the attempt of Congress to force 
conditions on the new commonwealth. The merits of the 
slavery question were soon obscured, and the excitement 
veered over into the constitutional field. 16 Slavery was 
theoretically condemned, and at the same time the right to 
import negroes was asserted. At least a denial of the right 
of Congress to prevent the introduction of slaves became the 
cry of the proslavery party. " No Congressional Re- 
striction ! " was the shibboleth of the day. " I regret as 
much as any person," declaimed John Scott, the territorial 
delegate in 1819, "the existence of Slavery in the United 
States. I think it wrong in itself, nor on principle would 
I be understood as advocating it ; but I trust I shall always 
be an advocate of the people's rights to decide on this 
question . . . for themselves. ... I consider it not only un- 

ing victory of the proslavery party in the constitutional convention 
election of 1820 that " the result seems to have been due not so 
much to any very strong sentiment in favor of slavery as to a fierce 
resentment bred bv the Congressional attempt at dictation" (p. 155) • 
Professor Woodburn agrees with this view. "It does not appear," 
he writes, " that any of those who argued for the free admission of 
Missouri ventured to defend the institution of slavery. . . .The 
defence for Missouri rested almost altogether on the constitutional 
phases of the question. They touched the evils of slavery only in 
minor and incidental ways" ("The Historical Significance of the 
Missouri Compromise," in American Historical Association Reports, 
1893, p. 284). On the other hand, Frank Blair went so far as to 
say, "The effort [to restrict slavery] was defeated by the inter- 
position of 10,000 slaves in Missouri, and the threat to dissolve the 
Union, unless permitted to constitute it a slave state" (The Destiny 
of the Races of this Continent, p. 7)- , . . . . . 

16 This purely constitutional nature of the struggle is denied by a 
correspondent signing his name "X." He denies the charge that 
the slavery restrictionists favored congressional tyranny. It is 
a notorious fact," he continues, "that many, if not all of the indi- 
viduals who are opposed to slavery, were equally opposed to the 
interference of Congress on the subject." He also says that every 
individual, who happened to believe slavery an evil, and its further 
introduction into Missouri prejudicial, have been indiscriminately 
abused" (Missouri Gazette, May 31, 1820). 



106 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

friendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the 
South, but wholly incompetent on Congress to interfere." 17 

In this same strain Henry Carroll, on presenting a resolu- 
tion from Howard County against congressional interfer- 
ence, said : " There are none within my view, none it might 
be said in Boone's Lick country . . . who would not lend 
efficient co-operation to achieve all the good within their 
compass, and wipe from the fair cheek the foul stain which 
soils it . . . [but] a rejection of slavery cannot fail to shut 
out of our country those disposed to migrate hither from the 
southern states, under a repugnance to separate from the 
labor useful to them." 18 On September n, 1819, the 
Baptist Association in session at Mount Pleasant Meeting 
House in Howard County adopted a petition to Congress in 
which these words are found : " Although with Washington 
and Jefferson ... we regret the existence of slavery at all 
. . . and look forward to a time when a happy emancipation 
can be effected, consistent with the principles of . . . Justice 
. . . the constitution does not admit slaves to be freemen; 
it does admit them to be property ... we have all the means 
necessary for a state government, and believe that the 
question of slavery is one which belongs exclusively to the 
people to decide on." 19 

The efforts of Congress to dictate the slave policy of 
Missouri raised a veritable tidal wave of antagonism in the 
Territory. On April 28, 1819, citizens of Montgomery 
County vigorously criticized Congress. 20 Resolutions fol- 
lowed to the same effect in Franklin County on July 5, 21 in 
Washington County on the 29th, 22 and in New Madrid 
County soon after. 23 In some cases the theory of limiting 
importations of negroes into the new State was advocated, 
but any tampering with the slaves already in the Territory 

17 Missouri Intelligencer, July 16, 1819. 

18 Ibid., July 9, 1819. 

19 St. Louis Enquirer, October 20, 1819. 

20 Missouri Herald, August 20, 1819. 

21 Missouri Intelligencer, July 9, 1819. 

22 Missouri Herald, August 4, 1819. 

23 Ibid., August 20, 1819. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES \Oy 

was condemned. Such a declaration was made at a meeting 
at Herculaneum in Jefferson County in April, 1819, 24 and 
the grand jury of the county followed the example in July. 25 
On April 11, 1819, nearly a hundred citizens of St. Louis 
met and condemned any further importations of slaves into 
the State, but decried any interference with the local system 
as it existed. 26 

Official bodies joined in the protest against Federal 
tyranny. The grand jurors of St. Louis on April 5, 1819, 
declared that " they believe that all the slave-holding states 
are virtually menaced and threatened with eventual de- 
struction [if slavery is prohibited in Missouri]." 27 The 
grand jurors of Montgomery County in July said, " They 
view the restriction attempted to be imposed on the people 
of Missouri Territory in the formation of a State Constitu- 
tion as unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive." 28 The 
Washington County grand jury put themselves similarly on 
record during the same month. 29 The editorials, the corre- 
spondence, and the general material of the press during 
these months bear witness to the interest which Missouri 
took in the slavery question. 

If the mere naked words and phrases of the multitude of 
indignant resolutions and declarations of the period be ac- 
cepted as the expression of honest opinion, we should be 
forced to the conclusion that the majority of the inhabitants 
of the Territory in 1820 thought less of slave labor than of 
constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the present writer and 
at least one other student of the period are forced by both 
internal and external evidence to the belief that the declara- 



24 Missouri Gazette, April 26, 1819. At this meeting at Hercu- 
laneum a three-column argument against slavery in the abstract was 
drawn up. It was argued that a restriction of importations would 
ultimately wipe out the system. " This perhaps will be the only time 
that you will ever have in your power to oppose the Horrible system 
with effect," concludes this statement. 

25 Missouri Herald, September 10, 1819. 

26 Missouri Gazette, April 12, 1819. 

27 Ibid., May 12, 1819. 

2 « Missouri Herald, September 4, 1819. 
29 Ibid., August 20, 1819. 



108 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

tions of the press and of the various individuals and political 
bodies should not be taken on faith as being the real senti- 
ments of the day. 30 No great liberties need be taken in 
interpreting the phraseology of the documents of these years 
to arrive at this view. The real solicitude of the " anti- 
restriction " men for slavery creeps out here and there with 
bald frankness. 

On April 5, 1819, the " Grand Jury of the Northern Cir- 
cuit of the Territory of Missouri," meeting at St. Louis, 
declared that congressional restriction of slavery was " an 
unconstitutional and unwarrantable usurpation of power 
over our unalienable rights and privileges as a free people. 
. . . Although we deprecate anything like an idea of disunion 
which next to our personal liberty and security of property 
is our dearest right . . . we feel it our duty to take a manly 
and dignified stand for our rights and privileges." 31 It ap- 
pears that these jurors, at least, struck at the root of the 
whole matter when they advanced "personal liberty and 
security of property " as alone being dearer than the Union. 
Another illustration of this point appears in the account of 
the celebration at St. Louis on March 30, 1820, to com- 
memorate the enabling act which Congress had just passed, 
admitting Missouri with slavery. Among other features of 
this celebration was one " representing a slave in great 
spirits, rejoicing at the permission granted by Congress to 
bring slaves into so fine a country as Missouri." 32 This 

30 When the author of this study and Mr. Floyd C. Shoemaker 
compared conclusions, it was found that they were identical on this 
point. _ We had arrived at them independently. He had judged 
from internal evidence in studying the convention in detail and the 
constitution which resulted from its work. My own conclusions 
were largely gained from external evidence, a study of the make-up 
of the population, previous and subsequent expressions and events, 
and also by reflecting back the whole later slavery struggle in Mis- 
souri upon this period when not only Missouri but the entire South 
was finding its bearings on the slavery question. Mr. Shoemaker's 
study, an enlargement of his early study of the Constitution of 
Missouri of 1820, will soon appear in print. 

31 MS., signed by John McKnight, foreman, and the other jurors, 
and by Archibald Gamble, clerk, Dalton Collection. 

32 Missouri Gazette, April 5, 1820. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES IO9 

affair does not look like the celebration of a victory over a 
point of constitutional law. 

The real strength of an immediate emancipation party 
during these years is not difficult to measure. Joseph 
Charless of the Missouri Gazette, who led the forces of 
those who opposed the introduction of slaves, stated edi- 
torially that he had spoken personally with all the convention 
candidates on his slate — Lucas, Bobb, Pettibone, and so 
forth. He said : " I am apprised of the sentiments of all 
those candidates who were favorable to the restriction of 
slavery. . . . They are decidedly opposed to any interference 
with the slaves now in the territory." 33 Judge Lucas, in a 
long statement in the Gazette of April 12, 1820, denied that 
he was an immediate emancipationist, but said that he did 
favor the limitation of the period allowed for the importa- 
tion of negroes lest the State be filled with thieving slaves 
and with overgrown slaveholding " nabobs " who would 
corrupt the democratic institutions of Missouri. He also 
argued that slaves would cause white labor to shun the State, 
and so argued for restriction. 

Of all the convention candidates whose cards appear in the 
four papers examined which cover the campaign period not 
one advocated any interference whatever with the slave 
property of the Territory. 34 Many were for the restriction 
of future importations, but none favored any meddling with 
the slaves already on the soil. Most of them condemned 
slavery in the abstract, but at the same time came out boldly 
for temporary importations. Pierre Chouteau, Jr., who is 
a fair example of these, declared that should he be elected 

33 Missouri Gazette, April 12, 1820. Charless wrote this in answer 
to "A Farmer" who disclaimed any desire to see more slaves im- 
ported, but opposed emancipating those then in the Territory. 1 DC 
candidates of the various factions were listed in the Gazette ot April 
3, 1820, and other issues. . . „ . . 

s* The Missouri Gazette supported the Restrictionists and the 
St. Louis Enquirer the " Anti-Restriction.sts." The Missouri Herald 
of Jackson, Cape Girardeau County, and the Missouri Intelligencer 
of Howard County— then in the extreme western part of the lern- 
tory— advocated no restriction also. The first issue of the i Ml* 
sourian, published at St. Charles, that could be found is dated sub- 
sequent to the election. 



HO SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

to the convention, " any attempt to prevent the introduction 
of slaves . . . will meet my warmest opposition." 35 

Not only in St. Louis was there strong proslavery feeling. 
James Evans, running for election in Cape Girardeau 
County, advertised as follows : " I frankly declare that I 
am in favor of the future introduction of slaves into the new 
State." 36 Thomas Mosly of the same county was for no 
"constitutional restriction on the subject whatever." 37 
Several others advocated the same policy. A lone re- 
strictionist came out in Cape Girardeau County. George H. 
Scripps declared that increased slave importations would 
keep free labor from the State, and would result in race 
amalgamation. 38 

In Lincoln County John Lindsay stated that " as to 
slavery, I shall be in favor of it." 39 Abner Vansant of 
Jefferson County did not deny that slavery affected morals 
and had other bad features, but considered that " perhaps it 
would be politic to permit the future introduction of them 
[slaves] for a short time." 40 Indeed several candidates, as, 
for example, Robert Simpson, were not strongly proslavery 
in feeling, but thought it expedient to " allow a reasonable 
time for those owning slaves and who may become interested 
in our soil, to emigrate to the state." 41 Rufus Pettibone 
also favored no restriction for a number of years " for the 
sake of encouraging emigration." 42 This economic motive 
was doubtless an important factor in arousing opinion 
against restriction. The broad prairies were there to be 
developed, and slave labor was to be the means of accom- 
plishing the task. 

35 Missouri Gazette, April 19, 1820. For the St. Louis candidates 
see the issues of April 5, 12, 19, 1820. 

36 Missouri Herald, April 8, 1820. 
"Ibid. 

38 Ibid., April 22, 1820. 

39 Missouri Gazette, April 12, 1820. Two candidates, Robert 
Simpson and John Robb, fearing lest Missouri later deal in slaves 
as an article of commerce, favored restriction in the period of 
importations (ibid., April 10). 

40 Ibid., April 26. 

41 Ibid., April 5. 

42 Ibid , April 12. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES II I 

From the constitutional convention itself one may gain a 
clear-cut view of the sentiment of the period. The pro- 
cedure of this assembly, together with the origin and de- 
velopment of the slavery clauses, has been minutely ex- 
amined and analyzed by others, and the subject need not 
enter into the present discussion. 43 The slavery sections of 
the constitution will be set forth in the various chapters of 
this study according to their subject matter. In general it 
may be said that the document laid no restriction upon bona- 
fide importations of slaves, and only by the consent of the 
master could they be emancipated. 44 Benton's claim to the 
authorship of the clause preventing emancipation without 
the owner's consent and without reembursing him was not 
made by him until years after the convention had assembled. 
He repeatedly maintained that he secured the insertion of 
this provision, but his claim is backed by his own word 
alone. 45 The constitution apparently satisfied the pro- 
slavery element. 46 The question seemed legally settled, 

43 Shoemaker, pp. 49-51. The original published Journal of the 
convention is now very rare, but a photo-facsimile was printed in 
1905. 

44 Art. iii, sec. 26, paragraphs I, 2. 

45 " I was myself the instigator of that prohibition, and the cause 
of it being put into the constitution — though not a member of the 
convention — being equally opposed to slavery agitation and slavery 
extension" (Thirty Years' View, vol. i, pp. 8-9). Benton was exas- 
perated when Frank Blair and Gratz Brown became active sup- 
porters of emancipation in the legislature. "They know perfectly 
well," he said, "that I introduced the clause against Emancipation 
into the Constitution of the state, with a view to keep this slavery 
agitation out of politics, and that my whole life has been opposed 
to their present course" (Republican, July 26, 1858). Benton wrote 
Gale and Seaton on February 29, 1856, that he was " most instru- 
mental in getting that clause put in for the express purpose of keep- 
ing slavery agitation out of the State" (quoted in the St. Joseph 
Commercial Cycle, March 28, 1856). , 

46 The St. Louis Enquirer was well pleased with the constitution, 
even calling it "immortal" on one occasion (issue of September I, 
1821). The Gazette, on the other hand, had no praise for the slavery 
sections (issue of July 21, 1820). "A Planter" sent to the M.s- 
sourian of August 26, 1820, the following note of sat.sfaction as to 
the work of the convention: "What better security can slave holders 
have that their rights will be secured, and their habits respected n 
Missouri, than the provisions of the constitution. . . I hear nobody 
advocating emancipation : all my neighbors say the question is set- 



112 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

although the free-negro clause was to keep Missouri and 
the whole country roused for another year. 

After the Compromise of 1820 Missouri sat down to enjoy 
the fruits of her effort, her legally secure black labor. The 
first decade of her statehood was one of development. With 
her great and pugnacious senator, Thomas Hart Benton, 
she was becoming influential in the land. In these years 
there occurred an episode which was so spontaneous and 
romantic and so long kept secret that but for the high 
authority who vouches for it one might well consider the 
whole story comparable to Jefferson's shimmering salt 
mountain and other airy legends of Mississippi Valley lore. 
This is the emancipation conspiracy of 1828 which was years 
after revealed by the Whig leader, Mr. John Wilson of 
Fayette. He, with Senators Benton, Barton, and other 
prominent statesmen of both parties, " representing every 
district of the State," met in secret to plan a movement for 
gradual emancipation. Candidates were to be canvassed, 
and both parties were to get memorials signed to be pre- 
sented to the legislature. At this juncture appeared the 
widespread newspaper canard representing that Arthur 
Tappan of New York " had entertained at his private table 
some negro men and that, in fact, these negroes rode out 
in his private carriage with his Daughters." This report 
raised a storm of indignation in the State, and the scheme 
of the emancipationists was abandoned. Mr. Wilson claims 
that " but for that story of the conduct of the great original 
fanatic on this subject we should have carried, under the 
leadership of Barton and Benton, our project and begun the 
future emancipation of the colored race that would long 
since have been followed by Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia 
. . . our purpose after we got such a law safely placed on the 
Statute Book, was to have followed it up by a provision 
requiring the masters of those who should be born to be 

tied fairly, and they have no wish to renew it. . . . The worst sort 
of restrictionists are the men that wish to tie the people, neck and 
heels, to prevent them from injuring themselves." 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES II3 

free to teach them to read and write. This shows you how 
little a thing turns the destiny of nations." 47 

Assuming that the meeting took place, its first peculiarity 
is the really naive confidence of the participants that but for 
the Tappan story " we should have carried, under the leader- 
ship of Barton and Benton, our project." The furor which 
convulsed Missouri during the Compromise debate would 
seem to have been sufficient to appal any one who might 
be minded to tamper anew with the slavery question. It 
hardly seems possible that Benton, who systematically 
smothered the slavery issue, should have pushed such a 
program, but the apparently permanent calm which followed 
the Compromise and the material prosperity of the State 
during these years may have warranted a venture at wiping 
out an institution which Benton considered a potential cause 
of bitter agitation and political unrest. 

Again, one can scarcely believe that sentiment in Missouri 
had materially changed between 1821 and 1828 when it is 
considered that she more than doubled her slave population 
between 1820 and 1830. 48 It might be answered that Benton 
was clever enough to feel the public pulse, and that if he 
entered into any such project there must have been appear- 
ances to justify his hopes of success. But Benton was not 
an infallible reader of the signs of the times. It is known 
how he mistook popular sentiment when he made his dis- 
astrous " Appeal " to the voters of his party twenty years 
later. Another fact which appears to make the success of 
any such emancipation scheme doubtful in 1828 is that in 

47 MS. Wilson to Thomas Shackelford, January 13, 1866, in the 
possession of the Missouri Historical Society. In his Illustrated 
History of Missouri (pp. 221-223) Switzler quoted this letter but 
took several liberties with the text which later writers have copied. 
From the text of the letter Wilson did not remember whether the 
meeting was held in 1827 or 1828. Meigs in his Life of Benton docs 
not mention this episode. He even thinks Benton was the devoted 
friend of Missouri" who published a long article in the St. Louis 
Enquirer of April 26, 1820, which advocated slavery in the State 
(p. 119). . , , 

48 The Federal census of 1820 gave Missouri 10.222 slaves, and 
that of 1830, 25,091 (Federal Census, Statistical View, 1700-1830. 
p. 27). 



114 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

January of the next year the Missouri General Assembly 
passed a resolution declaring it to be unconstitutional for 
Congress to vote money for the American Colonization 

Society. 49 

There was some antislavery sentiment in the State prior 
to the Garrisonian movement. As early as 1819 one 
Humphrey Smith was indicted by the Howard County grand 
jury for inciting slaves to revolt. 50 In 1820 certain 
ministers of the Methodist body were accused of preaching 
sedition to slaves. This was denied by one A. McAlister of 
St. Charles County, who declared that he had talked to 
them and had heard most of them preach. The " Methodist 
Church," he continued, " would no sooner countenance such 
conduct than they would any other gross immorality." 51 

There must have been some effective antislavery feeling 
in the General Assembly in these early years. On December 
30, 1832, Lane submitted the following resolution to the 
House : " Resolved. . . . That the following amendment to 
the Constitution of this State be proposed. . . . That so 
much of the twenty sixth section of the third article of the 
Constitution, as declares that the General Assembly shall 
have no power to prevent BONA FIDE emigrants to this 
State . . . from bringing [their slaves] from any of the 
United States . . . shall be and is hereby repealed." 52 This 
amendment got as far as a second reading, but does not 
reappear in the journal. It must have had some supporters 
to have gone even as far as that. During the year 1835 
there was a demand for a state convention to meet and 
settle various needs, among others to bring about emancipa- 
tion. 

An insight into the views of this precise period can be 
gained from a prominent citizen who had much at stake and 
great opportunities for observation. James Aull of Lexing- 

49 Session Laws, 1828, p. 89. These resolutions passed January 
23, 1829. 

50 St. Louis Enquirer, October 20, 1819. 

51 Missouri Gazette, May 24, 1820. McAlister's letter is dated 
May 5. 

52 House Journal, 7th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 126. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES 115 

ton was a trader of considerable prominence throughout 
western Missouri. He had mercantile establishments at 
Lexington, Independence, Liberty, and Richmond. In 
answer to an antislavery Quaker firm, Siter, Price, and 
Company of Philadelphia, who refused to have business re- 
lations with any firm dealing in negroes, Aull wrote on 
June 15, 1835: "We are the owners of Slaves, . . . [but] 
it would gratify me exceedingly to have all our negroes 
removed from among us, it would be of immense advantage 
to the State, but to free them and suffer them to remain 
with us I for one would never consent to. I once lived in 
a town where about i/io of the whole population was free 
Negroes and a worse population I have never seen." Aull 
then discusses the emancipation movement of the time as 
follows : " At our August elections it will be proposed to our 
people the propriety of calling a convention, if the conven- 
tion meet one of the most important subjects to be brought 
before it will be the gradual abolition of slavery. I have no 
doubt that we will have a convention and I have as little 
doubt that such steps will be taken as will free all our slaves 
in a limited number of years. Many of our Slave holders 
are the warm advocates of this doctrine but I have not 
conversed with a man who would consent to let them remain 
amongst us after they are free." 53 

From this letter it appears that from an early date one of 
the fundamental problems of emancipation was prominent, — 
the free negro. The slaveholder had before him not only 
the fear of losing, in case of legal emancipation, the only 
labor then available, but also the spectre of a great body of 
free blacks as his neighbors, who he felt would be both an 
economic and a social burden. 

Although no convention met, despite the prediction of 
Mr. Aull, there seems to have been a somewhat widespread 
idea that gradual emancipation could be effected by this 

53 In the collection of Messrs. E. U. Hopkins and J. Chamberlain 
of Lexington. 



Il6 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

means. 54 The Missouri Argus states that several articles 
favoring gradual emancipation had appeared in various 
papers, although no sheet had definitely declared for it. 
Some papers opposed the meeting of any convention lest 
the slavery subject should be discussed. The Missouri 
Argus stated editorially that " the slave-holders cannot be 
frightened, as they know that they have the power in their 
own hands. They never will consent to turn their slaves 
loose among us. Some system of disposing of the blacks 
would have to be devised. . . . Such a question should be 
discussed at a time when the public-mind is entirely serene 
and peaceful." 55 Again, the Argus stated in the same issue 
that a discussion of slavery would tend to check southern 
immigration to the State and would cause restlessness and 
insubordination on the part of the slaves. " We are con- 
versant with men in every section of the State, and fully 
believe that the proposition to abolish slavery at this time 
would be voted down by a majority of four or five to one. 
So exceedingly unpopular and illy received is it, that no 
candidate dare avow himself its advocate." Whether the 
Argus was wholly correct or not may be questioned, but the 
fact that the convention was never held makes it probable 
that the editor had well analyzed the situation. 

At this period there seems to have been little race feeling. 
The Daily Evening Herald of St. Louis of June 9, 1835, in 
commenting on the burning of two Alabama negroes for 
murdering two white children, said : " We have no such 
punishment known to our laws, and it argues an evil state of 
public mind that can permit this punishment of feudal 
tyranny to be inflicted upon men, in defiance of the law, 
because they are black." Another statement which illus- 
trates the broad feeling of the time and the strength of the 
emancipation party of the State is found in the following 

54 The Daily Evening Herald and Commercial Advertiser of June 
9» 1835, quotes an issue of the National Intelligencer of unknown 
date as follows : " Several of the leading Missouri papers are advo- 
cating the gradual emancipation of the slaves of the State." 

55 Issue of May 22, 1835. The abolition agitation was exciting 
the country. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES II7 

editorial : "Is it not wonderful that the citizens of free States 
will not allow the doctrines of Abolition and negro equality 
to be lectured upon but at the risk of pelting with eggs, 
when here in Missouri we calmly allow a political party to 
subserve party ends, to attempt to break up the very founda- 
tions, the whole slave interests in Missouri ? " 66 Such sym- 
pathy for the negro seems to have been the calm and judicial 
feeling in the State on the eve of a period in which anti- 
negro sentiment was as bitter and as violent in its demon- 
strations as any the State ever witnessed. 

On April 28, 1836, the mulatto, Francis Mcintosh, was 
burned by a St. Louis mob for stabbing an officer. 57 A 
young New England editor, the Reverend Elijah P. Love- 
joy, of the Observer, already disliked for his anti-Catholic, 
antimob, and antislavery sentiments, severely criticized the 
mob and the judge who upheld their action. 68 By the fall 
of 1835 the agitation created by Lovejoy was at least strong 
enough to cause apprehension on the part of his friends. 
On October 5 of this year a letter was sent to the Observer 
by several prominent citizens, among whom was Hamilton 
R. Gamble, later the Union governor and the champion of 
gradual emancipation. These men suggested that "the 

56 Missouri Argus [St. Louis], May 22, 1835. 

57 There are several contemporary accounts of this episode. The 
mayor of St. Louis at the time was J. F. Darby. He mentions the 
affair in his Personal Recollections (pp. 237-242). Perhaps the 
fullest account, although a biased one, is found in the Quarterly 
Anti-Slavery Magazine for July, 1836 (vol. i, pp. 400-409). This 
narrative claims that some of the St. Louis aldermen even aided in 
Mcintosh's death (p. 403). Accounts can also be found in the 
Fourth Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society (pp. 
78-79), and in Niles' Register (vol. 1, p. 234). The Missouri press 
of the months of May and June contains scattered fragments of 
news on the subject. Judge L. E. Lawless's statement of his action 
is found in the Missouri Argus of July I, 1836. He here calls Love- 
joy a "sanctimonious enthusiast." 

58 The career of Lovejoy is well discussed by N. D. Harris, His- 
tory of Negro Slavery in Illinois and of the Slavery Agitation in 
that State, ch. vi, vii. His account, although antislavery in tone, is 
based on newspapers and other local sources. Some of Lovejoy's 
papers can be found in the Memoir by his brothers and in Thomas 
Dimmock's Address at the Church of the Unity, St. Louis, March 
14, 1888. A very eulogistic account of Lovejoy can be found in E. 
Beecher, Narrative of the Riots at Alton. 



Il8 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

present temper of the times require a change in the manner 
of conducting that print [The Observer] in relation to the 
subject of domestic slavery. The public mind is greatly 
excited, and owing to the unjustifiable interference of our 
Northern brethren in our social relations, the community 
are, perhaps, not in a situation to endure sound doctrine on 
this subject ... we hope that the concurring opinion of so 
many persons having the interest of your paper and of 
religion both at heart, may induce you to distrust your own 
judgment, and so far change the character of the OB- 
SERVER as to pass over in silence everything connected 
with the subject of slavery." 59 

Lovejoy, however, would not be silenced. His criticism 
of Judge Lawless and the Mcintosh mob brought a storm of 
indignation, and he prepared to move up the Mississippi to 
Alton, Illinois, after a mob had pillaged his office. It is said 
that Lovejoy's criticism of the Catholics, and of Judge Law- 
less as such, added to his attacks on mob rule and slavery, 
caused this affair, 60 and the slavery issue is therefore not 
to be considered as the only cause of the feeling which com- 
pelled his flight. To follow Lovejoy's career to his violent 
death would be of no immediate pertinence in this con- 

69 Quoted by Dimmock, p. 7. Whatever may have been Love- 
joy's early conservatism in his antislavery crusade, he became fanat- 
ical later on. After removing to Alton, he wrote to the editor of 
the Maine Christian Mirror as follows : " I have seen the ' Recorder 
and the Chronicle ' with column after column reasoning coldly about 
sin and slavery in the abstract, when the living and awful reality 
was before them and about them; disputing about . . . the precise 
amount of guilt to ... be attached to this or that slave-holder as 
coolly and with as much indifference, as if no manacled slaves stood 
before them with uplifted hands . . . beseeching them to knock off 
their galling, soul-corroding chains . . . how long, oh! how long 
shall these beloved, but mistaken brethren continue to abuse their 
influence . . . and retard the salvation of the slave?" This plea is 
certainly strong, and in the temper in which the State was in these 
years any such sentiments would hardly be endured (quoted in the 
Fourth Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society, pp. 
81-82, note). 

60 See Judge Lawless's statement in the Missouri Argus of July 
i, 1836. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES IIQ 

nection. 61 His retirement to Alton has been considered to 
mark the close of an epoch in Missouri history. This period 
is said to have been characterized by a somewhat general 
demand for gradual emancipation. That there was such a 
movement is evident, but it seems improbable that those who 
favored the issue were numerous enough to have been suc- 
cessful at any time. 

Lovejoy's expulsion from St. Louis was looked upon as 
justifiable by most of his local contemporaries. "As I re- 
member," wrote the Reverend W. G. Eliot, "very few 
persons, even among the best citizens, expressed either re- 
gret or condemnation." 62 The Bulletin of St. Louis ex- 
pressed the sentiment of a considerable number when it 
stated editorially that " we have read, with feelings of pro- 
found contempt and disgust a paragraph in the Alton 
Observer ... in which . . . Elijah P. Lovejoy, the fanatic 
editor . . . spits his venom at the Judge [Lawless]. . . . 
We in common with every honest man consider this ' Rev- 
erend ' libeler to have disgraced . . . the town which has the 
misfortune to have him for an inhabitant. . . . The epithet 
of ' infamous ' which this fanatic bestows upon Judge Law- 
less, is properly applied to himself alone. Such vile lan- 
guage sufficiently explains his expulsion from this city." 63 

The reformer's efforts apparently did little to better the 
lot of the Missouri slave. Unfortunately he made his plea 
just when the Garrisonian movement was agitating both the 
country and Congress. Lovejoy's program was naturally 
considered a part of the general abolition movement, so that 
the people were prejudiced against him when he began his 
preaching. 

61 Lovejoy was killed by a mob at Alton on the night of Novem- 
ber 7, 1837. Mayor John M. Krum of Alton made an official state- 
ment of the affair which can be found in Niles' Register, vol. liu, 
pp. 106-107. 

62 W. G. Eliot, p. in. , . . . „ „ .. 

63 In quoting the above from an unknown issue of the bulletin 
the editor of the Missouri Argus remarks, "We . need hardly 
add that we fully coincide with the Editor of the Bulletin (issue 
of December 9, 1836). 



120 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The same year that the anti-abolition feeling drove Love- 
joy from St. Louis an episode growing out of the slavery 
situation convulsed Marion County. Dr. David Nelson, 
president of Marion College, who was a Southerner and a 
former slaveholder, read at a religious meeting a paper pre- 
sented to him by Colonel John Muldrow " proposing to sub- 
scribe $10,000 himself and asked others to subscribe, to in- 
demnify masters for their slaves when government should 
think proper to abolish slavery in that way." This led to a 
personal encounter between Muldrow and a certain extreme 
pro-slavery citizen named John Bosley, in which Bosley was 
severely injured. The people were highly incensed, and the 
college president was forced to flee the State. 64 Muldrow 
was tried at St. Charles and was acquitted, Edward Bates 
acting as his counsel. 65 It is interesting to note that his 
proposition was in harmony with the twenty-sixth section 
of the third article of the constitution of 1820 which pro- 
vides that slaves were not to be emancipated " without the 
consent of their masters, or without paying them." The 
incident indicates that this clause had become unpopular, 
at least in Marion County. 

Two other men, Williams and Garrett, were ordered from 
Marion County the same year for receiving literature from 
the American Colonization Society. The feeling became so 
warm that upon Dr. Nelson's return to attend his sick son 
a public meeting was called at Palmyra, May 21, 1836, and 
it was resolved " That we approve the recent conduct of a 
portion of our citizens towards Messrs. Garrett and Williams 

64 Among the contemporary accounts of this turmoil, which con- 
vulsed Marion County in 1836, is the rather biased but full one sent 
by a correspondent of the New York Journal of Commerce, which 
was quoted in the Fourth Annual Report of the American Anti- 
Slavery Society, pp. 78-81, note. This same narrative is also found 
in the Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine for July, 1837 (vol. ii, pp. 
395-397) : _R. I- Holcombe outlines the story (pp. 203-207). He 
gained his information from old newspaper files and the statements 
of contemporaries. His account agrees with the above in most 
particulars. 

65 Bosley soon recovered, and the excitement " blew off " within 
a month, according to the anonymous writer of a letter dated Pal- 
myra, June 8 (printed in the Missouri Argus of July 29, 1836). 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES 12 1 

(two avowed advocates and missionaries of abolition) who 
came among us to instruct our slaves to rebellion by the use 
of incendiary pamphlets . . . eminently calculated to weaken 
the obligations of their obedience." 00 The faculty of 
Marion College were suspected because of Dr. Nelson's 
course. Conscious of the public temper, they exhibited a 
resolution passed by them the day before this meeting, in 
which it was resolved " That the faculty of Marion College 
utterly disapprove, as unchristian and illegal the circulation 
of all books, pamphlets, and papers, calculated to render the 
slave population of the State discontented." They had 
taken even such definite action as to forbid the students to 
talk sedition to slaves, circulate any antislavery literature, 
hold any antislavery meetings or discuss slavery matters 
before the public, or instruct slaves without the consent of 
their masters. 67 

The feeling exhibited in the events just recounted per- 
sisted in Marion County for years. In July, 1841, the 
Illinois abolitionists, George Thompson, James Burr, and 
Alanson Work, were betrayed near Palmyra by slaves whom 
they attempted to entice into Canada. 68 After a stormy im- 
prisonment and trial they were sentenced to the penitentiary 
for twelve years, but were pardoned before their terms ex- 
pired. 69 This event caused the formation of a vigilance 

66 Fourth Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 
p. 80. 

C7 Ibid, p. 81. 

GS Republican, July 23, 1841, quoting from the Missouri Courier 
of unknown date. See also the Daily Evening Gazette of July 26, 
1841. The Gazette claims that these abolitionists attended the " Mis- 
sion Institute near Quincy." Holcombe says that the citizens raised 
$20.62^ for the slaves who betrayed Thompson and his colleagues 
(p. 239). An account of the affair can also be found in Thompson, 
passim. 

69 A Palmyra correspondent of the Republican declared that tins 
trial caused "Great Excitement" in that city. The defence argued 
that they simply "attempted" to entice the slaves, used no force, 
and had no idea of profit in mind. This it was claimed did not 
come within the statute. The attempt to escape on a technicality 
inflamed the citizens. "Our informant," continues the report, "states 
that it was the general understanding that they could not be indicted: 
and if it should so turn out, there would probablj fare 

for the prisoners than if they went to the penitentiary (Repub- 
lican, September II, 1841). 



122 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

committee in each township of the county to examine 
strangers who could not well explain their business, and 
suspected persons were expelled from the county and were 
also threatened with a penalty of fifty lashes should they re- 
turn. 70 Some doubtful sympathy seems to have been felt 
for Thompson and his companions by certain Missourians. 
The Daily Evening Gazette lamented that Missouri had no 
" Lunatic Asylum," as " the poor, deluded creatures " were 
victims of "monomania — a case not where the morals are 
stained, but where the mind is disordered." 71 At the same 
time anti-abolition feeling in Marion County continued. On 
March 8, 1843, citizens set fire to the institute of the Quincy 
abolitionist, Dr. Eels. They were not prosecuted. 72 

While these events were occurring in eastern Missouri, 
the western portion of the State was in an uproar over the 
" Mormon War." The extent of the slavery element in the 
Mormon troubles is debated, but the citizens of western 
Missouri were convinced that their slave property was en- 
dangered by the sectaries, whether the Mormons deserved 
the imputation or not. On July 20, 1833, a large meeting 
of " Gentiles " was held at Independence. It is said that 
nearly five hundred were present. A manifesto was pub- 
lished by this meeting, a portion of which is as follows: 
" More than a year since, it was ascertained that they [the 
Mormons] had been tampering with our slaves, and en- 
deavoring to rouse dissension and raise seditions among 
them. ... In a late number of the STAR published at Inde- 
pendence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article invit- 
ing free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become 
Mormons, and remove and settle among us. This exhibits 
them in still more odious colors . . . [this] would corrupt our 
blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed." 73 

70 Holcombe, p. 263. 

71 Issue of September 16, 1841. 

72 Holcombe, p. 266. 

73 Quoted by W. A. Linn, The Story of the Mormons, p. 171. 
Another portion of this manifesto reads: "Elevated as they [the 
Mormons] mostly are but little above the condition of our blacks 
either in regard to property or education, they have become a subject 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES 1 23 

Other meetings were called to take action against the 
Mormons. In the summer of 1838 citizens of Carroll 
County condemned " Mormons, abolitionists, and other dis- 
orderly persons." 74 This implies that the slavery issue in 
some cases entered into the " Mormon War." On the other 
hand, citizens of Ray County, meeting about the same time, 
passed seven resolutions against Mormon shortcomings, but 
did not mention slavery among these. 75 The Mormons 
asserted that nothing but the bitter prejudice of the Missouri 
" Gentiles " and their greed for the well-improved Mormon 
farms was the motive underlying the trouble. Etzenhouser, 
writing with a strong pro-Mormon bias, quotes General 
Doniphan as denying that the slavery question " had any- 
thing to do with it [the Mormon War]." 76 

The position of the Mormons on the slavery issue is said 
to have shifted at different periods. 77 Be that as it may, the 

of much anxiety on that part, serious and well grounded complaints 
having been already made of their corrupting influence on our 
slaves " (quoted by Elder R. Etzenhouser, From Palmyra, New 
York, 1830, to Independence, Missouri, 1894, p. 328). 

74 Southern Advocate (Jackson), September 1, 1838. The date of 
this meeting is not given. 

75 Southern Advocate, September 8, 1838. The date of this meet- 
ing is not given. The editor did not seem to be aware of the slavery 
issue entering into the Mormon troubles. "What is the precise 
nature of the offence of this deluded people," he said, " and in what 
particular they are troublesome neighbors, we are uninformed" 
(ibid., September 1). This paper was published in Cape Girardeau 
County, far from the seat of the Mormon difficulties. 

76 Etzenhouser quotes from the Kansas City Journal (date not 
given) : "Question: 'Do you think, Colonel, that the slavery ques- 
tion had anything to do with the difficulties with the Mormons?' 
Colonel Doniphan, ' No, I don't think that matter had anything to do 
with it. The Mormons, it is true, were northern and eastern people, 
and "free soilers," but they did not interfere with^the negroes and 
we did not care whether they owned slaves or not'" (p. 304). 

77 The Utah Mormons took a novel stand— a sort of compulsory 
neutrality— on the slavery question. About 1850 the official organ of 
the Church declared: "We feel it our duty to define our position in 
relation to slavery. . . . There is no law in Utah to authorize 
slavery, neither any to prohibit it. If a slave is disposed to leave 
his master, no power exists here either legal or moral, that will pre- 
vent him But if a slave chooses to remain with his master, none are 
allowed to interfere between the master and the slave. . . . W hen 
a man in the Southern States embraces our faith, and is the owner 
of slaves, the Church says to him: If your slaves wish to remain 



124 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

consideration here is of the effect of the negro question on 
the Missourians of the day. Whether real or alleged, ac- 
tivity relative to slavery on the part of the Mormons was 
used by the western Missouri people during the thirties as 
a campaign slogan, and the issue must therefore have been 
vital and important. That the Missourians thought the 
Saints were negro thieves seems certain. When Burr, 
Work, and Thompson attempted to entice slaves from 
Marion County in 1841, the people thought at once that 
they were Mormons. 78 As late as 1855 a St. Joseph editor, 
in quoting Brigham Young's denial that the Mormons had 
ever stolen slaves, remarked : " We think that the latter day 
saints are not so bad after all." 79 Evidently Young's state- 
ment was a surprise. 

In another quarter at this period a movement less violent 
but of enormous consequences to the slave interests of the 
State was developing. This was the Platte Purchase, which 
added six very rich counties to the slave power. Benton 
and Linn pushed the measure in the Senate, the former 
always taking great pride in its accomplishment, both be- 
cause of the magnitude of the undertaking and because of 

with you, put them not away; but if they choose to leave you, or 
are not satisfied to remain with you, it is for you to sell them, or to 
let them go free, as your own conscience may direct you. The 
Church on this point assumes the responsibility to direct. The laws 
of the land recognize slavery; we do not wish to oppose the laws 
of the country" (The Frontier Guardian [date not given], quoted 
in the Eleventh Annual Report [1851] of the American and Foreign 
Anti-Slavery Society, pp. 94-95). 

78 Republican, July 23, 1841, quoting from an issue of the Missouri 
Courier (Palmyra) : " On Tuesday morning of the present week our 
town was thrown into considerable excitement by the arrest of three 
white men (supposed to be disciples of the Mormon Prophet Jo. 
Smith) who were caught in the act of decoying from their rightful 
owners several slaves of the neighborhood." The issue of the 
Courier is not given. 

79 St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, May 18, 1855. " Formerly the 
rumor was," said Young, " that they [the Mormons] were going to 
tamper with the slaves ... we never had thought of such a thing. 
. . . The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, 
but they must serve." The Cycle gives no reference for this state- 
ment of Brigham Young. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES I 25 

its importance to Missouri. 80 In his message of November 
22, 1836, Governor Boggs stated that the General Assembly 
had memorialized Congress on the subject, and that Con- 
gress had agreed to grant the request when the Territory 
should be secured from the Indians. 81 

That the State was anxious to obtain the rich river 
bottoms of this region cannot be doubted. It does not seem 
likely that this was a preconcerted grab for more slave terri- 
tory as von Hoist asserts, 82 and as Horace Greeley appar- 
ently believed. The latter says that the bill passed "so 
quietly as hardly to attract attention." 83 Either the North 

80 " This was a measure of great moment to Missouri. . . . The 
difficulties were three- fold: I. To make still larger a State which 
was already one of the largest in the Union. 2. To remove Indians 
from a possession which had just been assigned to them in per- 
petuity. 3. To alter the Missouri Compromise line in relation to 
slave Territory, and thereby convert free soil into slave soil. . . . 
And all these difficulties to be overcome at a time when Congress 
was inflamed with angry debates upon abolition petitions. . . . The 
first step was to procure a bill for the alteration of the compromise 
line and the extension of the boundary: it . . . passed the Senate 
without material opposition. It went to the House of Representa- 
tives; and found there no serious opposition to its passage. . . . 
The author of this view was part and parcel of all that transaction — 
remembers well the anxiety of the State to obtain the extension — her 
joy at obtaining it— the gratitude which all felt to the Northern 
members without whose aid it could not have been done" (Benton, 
Thirty Years' View, vol. i, pp. 626-627). Switzler claims that the 
idea originated at a militia muster at Dale's farm, three miles from 
Liberty, in the summer of 1835, and that the originator was General 
Andrew S. Hughes. "At this meeting," he says, "and in public 
addresses, he proposed the acquisition of the Platte country; and the 
measure met with such emphatic approval that the meeting pro- 
ceeded at once by the appointment of a committee to organize an 
effort to accomplish it." Among others the committee was com- 
posed of D. R. Atchison and A. W. Doniphan. Missouri had, how- 
ever, agitated the annexation for several years prior to 1835. 

81 House Journal, 9th Ass., 1st sess., p. 36. The bill granting the 
cession and providing for the Indian treaties necessary for its con- 
summation was signed by the President June 7, 1836. The treaties 
were secured, and were proclaimed February 15, 1837. 

82 H Von Hoist, Constitutional and Political History of the 
United States, vol. ii, pp. I44-I4S- "The matter was disposed of 

quietly and quickly The legislative coach of the United States 

moved at a rapid rate when the slavery interest held the whip 

'm A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction 
in the United States, pp. 30-31. Greeley says that the bill floated 
through both Houses without encountering the perils of a division. 



126 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

wished to win the favor of Benton and his constituents, or, 
as Carr says of the act, " It did not and could not add to the 
voting strength of the South in the Senate." 84 Whether or 
not this accession contravened the Missouri Compromise has 
no direct bearing on the discussion of the local slavery 
system, and consequently will not be considered here. 

During the late thirties and early forties the slavery ques- 
tion began to affect the religious bodies of the country. In 
Missouri the change did not fail to manifest itself, 85 but 
the scope of this study will limit the discussion to a few of 
the denominations in which the struggle occurred. The 
Methodist Church labored heavily in this storm. As early 
as 1820 little patience was manifested toward those who 
instigated negroes to discontent or preached to them any- 
thing that might cause sedition. 86 In 1835 the Missouri 
Annual Conference, while praising the Colonization Society, 
at the same time condemned the " Abolition Society " and its 
agents, declaring the latter to be " mischievous in character, 

84 P. 186. 

85 During the earlier period the feeling against the colored race 
was far from inhuman in Missouri. Judge R. C. Ewing states that 
as late as 1836 he heard a mulatto preacher, the Reverend Nicholas 
Cooper, speak from the same pulpit with the prominent Cumberland 
Presbyterian ministers in the Bethel Church at the Boone County 
Synod. Cooper had been a slave (History and Memoirs of the Cum- 
berland Presbyterian Church in Missouri, p. 18). The Baptists of 
Illinois and Missouri had in the territorial days an organization 
called the "Friends of Humanity." When "Father" John Clark 
visited Boone's Lick in 1820, he found some families belonging to 
this society. This organization is said not to have opposed slavery 
in all its forms, but to have sought gradually to bring about emanci- 
pation ("An Old Pioneer" [pseudonym], Father John Clark, pp. 
256-257). This society allowed the holding of slaves by certain 
persons: (1) young owners who intended to emancipate their ne- 
groes when older; (2) those who purchased slaves in ignorance and 
would let the church decide on the date of emancipation; (3) women 
who were legally unable to emancipate; (4) those holding old, 
feebleminded, or otherwise incapacitated slaves. Another authority 
says that Clark came to St. Louis a Methodist in 1798, but that he 
and one Talbot immersed one another and became " The Baptized 
Church of Christ, Friends of Humanity." They had strong anti- 
slavery feeling, Clark even refusing his salary if it came from slave- 
holders ( W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. vi, pp. 
492-493). Some deny that Father Clark was a leal Baptist. 

86 Letter of A. McAlister in the Missouri Gazette of May 24, 1820. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES I 27 

and not calculated to better the situation of the people of 
color of the United States." 87 

The Missouri feud stirred up a general and bitter dis- 
cussion elsewhere, and, indeed, was the immediate cause of 
the slavery issue being injected into debates of the church. 
The question was transmitted to wider circles by the appeal 
of the Reverend Silas Comfort in 1840 from the Missouri 
to the General Conference of that year. The Missouri Con- 
ference had adjudged him guilty of maladministration in 
admitting the testimony of colored members against a white 
member in a church trial. On May 17, after a protracted 
debate, the General Conference reversed the decision of the 
Missouri Conference. Much bitterness was aroused, and 
when the next General Conference met at New York in 
1844, the sectional break was imminent. Despite the pro- 
tests of the southern members, Bishop Andrew was sus- 
pended for indirectly holding slaves through his wife. 88 In 
the following spring the Southern Methodist Church was 
formed at Louisville. 

The Missouri Conference of 1844, held after the session 
of the General Conference, remained firm in its position on 
slavery. " We are compelled to pronounce the proceeding 

87 Resolutions of the conference in the Daily Evening Herald of 
October 1, 1835. D. R. McAnally discusses the early Methodist 
Church in the State at some length. Without giving any authority, 
he speaks of the close relation between the races in the missionary 
period of the territorial and early statehood days. He declares that 
the negroes often led in the singing and in the testimony meetings 
(vol. i, pp. 147-148). 

88 Debates in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church During its Session at New York, May 3 to June 10, 1844. 
George Peck, editor, pp. 190-191. Bishop Soule was very influential 
in this conference. He does not appear as a radical. While Bishop 
Andrew's case was before the conference, he declared (May 9) that 
there could be no compromise if the Northern Methodists held 
slavery to be a "moral evil" (ibid., pp. 166-172). On May 31 he 
and Bishops Hedding, Waugh, and Morris petitioned the conference 
to drop the matter till the next conference and thus permit time to 
heal the trouble (ibid., pp. 184-185). On June 1 Bishop Andrew 
was suspended by a nearly sectional vote, the result being in to 00. 
All the Missouri delegates voted in the negative (ibid., pp. 100-191). 
However when the Reverend Francis A. Harding was suspended 
for a similar offence, one of the Missouri members voted against 
him (ibid., p. 240). 



128 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

of the late General conference against Bishop Andrew extra- 
judicial and oppressive," said one of the resolutions of the 
committee of nine who reported on October 4, 1844. 89 But 
the conference does not seem to have been very bitter 
against the Northern Methodists at this time. It even con- 
demned some of the southern agitators for their " violent 
proceedings." The resolutions of the conference contain 
the following worthy clause : " We do most cordially invite 
to our pulpits and firesides all our bishops and brethren who, 
in the event of a division, shall belong to the northern 
Methodist Church." 90 The members of the conference 
deeply regretted " the prospect of separation," and declared 
that they most sincerely " pray that some effectual means, 
not inconsistent with the interests and honor of all con- 
cerned, may be suggested and devised by which so great a 
calamity may be averted." Nevertheless, they approved the 
call of the Southern Methodist Convention to be held at 
Louisville the following May, and requested the individual 
churches to state their position regarding a separation from 
the Northern Methodists. 91 

The Annual Conference assembled at Columbia on Oc- 
tober 1, 1845, under the presidency of Bishop Soule. The 
Southern Church had already been formed, and a great 
deal of interest and heat was manifest in the debates on the 
action to be taken by Missouri. By a vote of 86 to 14 the 
conference decided to separate, and a new organization was 
thereupon effected. 92 Some ministers refused to accede, 

89 Report of the Missouri Conference on Division (Committee of 
Nine), resolution no. 2. This can be found in the official Southern 
Methodist source, History of the Organization of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, Comprehending all of the Official Proceed- 
ings, pp. 124-127. It can also be found in the official Northern 
Methodist account by the Reverend Charles Elliott, entitled, His- 
tory of the Great Secession in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
p. 1065. 

90 Report of the Committee of Nine, resolution no. 9. 

91 Ibid., nos. 3, 4. 

92 Jefferson Inquirer of October 16, 1845, quoting the Missouri 
Statesman of October 10. " The debate was a protracted one," accord- 
ing to the official account in the Missouri Statesman. The members 
who were dissatisfied with the action of the conference were given 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES I 29 

and an active antislavery minority continued to flourish in 
the State. 93 It was ambitious, and was so tenacious of 
purpose that it was accused of courting martyrdom. These 
so-called " Northern Methodists " came out openly against 
slavery, and their propaganda caused intense bitterness until, 
in the fifties, hostility to the ministers of this organization 
became implacable. In Fabius township, Marion County, a 
public meeting on February 18, 1854, protested against these 
persons, and demanded that they refrain from preaching in 
the county. 94 On October n, 1855, resolutions were passed 
by citizens of Jackson County requesting the Northern 
Methodists not to hold their conferences in the county, 95 
and public meetings in Andrew, Cass, and other counties 
uttered condemnations. 96 

The Northern Methodists, however, would not be silenced 
or driven from the field. At times they denied that they 
preached abolition doctrines. At their quarterly conference 
at Hannibal in 1854 they declared that the opposition to 
them was " a base persecution. . . . That, while we regard 

leave to join the northern body if they wished, and were dismissed 
" without blame " as to their moral position. Each member arose in 
the conference and stated his individual position on the issue (ibid.). 
The Northern Methodist account claims that the St. Louis churches 
were especially opposed to a division of the church. When the 
author of this statement visited the city in October, 1846, he consid- 
ered that a majority of the members were still in the old church, the 
northern body comprising two English churches with 200 members, 
two German churches with 284 communicants, and two colored 
churches with 180 members (Elliott, History of the Great Secession 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, p. 593)- 

93 One of the dissenting ministers, Lorenzo Waugh, states that his 
charge at Hermon Mission was unanimously opposed to separation. 
Immediately after the New York General Conference of 1844, the 
Missouri Conference met at St. Louis. Waugh says that there was 
"some excitement," and that a number wished a new church. At 
the Columbia Conference he claims that " most of the older preach- 
ers " were determined to " go South," and that those who opposed 
them were unfairly restricted in debate (A Candid Statement of the 
Course Pursued by the Preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South in Trying to Establish Their New Organisation in Missouri, 

94 Elliott, A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
South West, pp. 39-42. 

95 Ibid., pp. 68-69- , . 

96 W. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, vol. 1, pp. 102-104. 



^O SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

the system of slavery as a great moral, social, and political 
evil, we do most heartily protest against any attempt, directly 
or indirectly, at producing insubordination among slaves; 
we do heartily condemn ... the underground railroad opera- 
tion, and all other systems of negro stealing." 97 At a 
Warrensburg meeting in May, 1855, they protested that " the 
constitution and the laws guaranteeing to us the right to 
worship God according to the dictates of conscience we 
regard as sacred, and the course pursued at meetings held 
in our own and sister counties in proscribing ministers of 
the Gospel of certain denominations, is tyrannical, arbitrary, 
illegal and unjust." 98 

The struggle soon degenerated into a hatred which long 
outlasted slavery days. Northern Methodist ministers were 
expelled. Benjamin Holland was killed at Rochester in 
Andrew County in 1856, 99 and Morris and Allen were driven 
from Platte County. 100 "The whole course of this 
Northern Methodist Church since the separation, has been 
faithless and dishonorable," declared an editorial of 1855. 
" They are sending preachers into this State against an 
express agreement and plighted faith. . . . They send them 
. . . not for the purpose of propagating the Christian faith 

97 Elliott, A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
South West, p. 42. The proslavery party refused to believe that the 
Northern Methodists were not abolitionists. The following letter 
from a Rhode Island Methodist to the Hannibal Courier appeared 
in the Richmond Weekly Mirror of September 8, 1854: "You are 
right in charging our Missionaries in Missouri with laboring for the 
overthrow of slavery; or else we are deceived at the East. Accord- 
ing to the published report we have forty-one charges or circuits 
in Missouri, and only two self-supporting. We have been told again 
and again at the east, that it is for our highest interest as aboli- 
tionists to keep these missionaries there to operate against slavery." 

98 The History of Clay and Platte Counties, p. 174. 

99 R. R. Witten, Pioneer Methodism in Missouri, pp. 17-18. 

100 History of Clay and Platte Counties, p. 644. W. M. Paxton 
mentions the treatment accorded Morris (p. 108). In April, 1855, 
a proslavery meeting was held in Parkville to protest against aboli- 
tionism. One of the resolutions adopted reads as follows : " Re- 
solved, That we will suffer no person belonging to the Northern 
Methodist Church to preach in Platte county after date, under pen- 
alty of tar and feathers for the first offence, and a hemp rope for 
the second" (Missouri Statesman, April 27, 1855). 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES I31 

... but to overthrow slavery." 101 When the press was de- 
claring itself in this manner we cannot wonder that the 
populace detested the name. 

In 1857 the Northern Methodists petitioned the legisla- 
ture for a charter to found a university. A bill was intro- 
duced in the House on November 4 to grant such a 
charter. 102 After being amended, it was tabled on No- 
vember 12 by a vote of 95 to 16. 103 This action of the 
General Assembly called forth at the Annual Conference at 
Hannibal the following year this protest: "While we are 
aware that our anti-slavery sentiments were well known, we 
knew our peaceable and law-abiding character was equally 
well known. . . . Could we with reason have anticipated that 
a hundred ministers, and ten thousand members of our 
church, and a population of fifty thousand . . . would be 
denied a charter because their views of the peculiar institu- 
tion did not correspond with those of a majority of the 
Legislature?" 104 

The slavery question gave rise to many peculiar situations. 
Men found their positions perplexed by conflicting elements 
of religion, politics, and social status. The stand of the 
Reverend Nathan Scarritt well illustrates this point. His 
biographer says: "The division of his Church [the Metho- 
dist] left him connected with the Southern branch, where 
he has ever since remained, because, although opposed to 
slavery, he agreed with the Church South in her views of 
the relations of the Church to slavery as a civil institu- 
tion." 105 Such confusion of interests makes it very unsafe 
to attribute absolute party alignment to the slavery issue. 

101 Weekly Pilot (St. Louis), March 10, 1855. A similar editorial 
also appears in the issue of March 17. 

102 House Journal, 19th Ass., Adj. Sess., p. no. 

103 Ibid., p. 169. Twelve members were absent or sick. On March 
10, i860, the House of Representatives refused its hall to a Northern 
Methodist preacher (Missouri Statesman, March 16, i860). 

104 Minutes of the Eleventh Session of the Missouri Annual Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, meeting at Hannibal 
May 6 to 10, 1858, pp. 17-18. 

105 C. R. Barns, ed., The Commonwealth of Missouri, Biographical - 
section, p. 770. 



I32 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

Dr. Scarritt, for instance, was a Whig, a Southern Metho- 
dist, in theory but not in practice opposed to slavery, and a 
strong Union supporter in i860. 106 

The Presbyterian Church also divided on the slavery 
issue, but much later than the Methodist. " The whole New 
School Church," wrote an influential clergyman who was a 
witness of the events of the period, "was known to be 
opposed to slavery, and continued discussion was had at 
every meeting of the General Assembly until 1857, when 
such decisive action was taken as led to a separation from 
the General Assembly of all the synods in slaveholding 
states. In the Old School there was but little discussion on 
the subject, and the generally understood public sentiment 
of Missouri was that nothing was to be said against the 
institution, and consequently, so far as Missouri was con- 
cerned there was a constant tendency on the part of those 
of the New School, who wished for quiet, to leave that 
body and enter the Old." The New School was embarrassed 
by its connection with the American Home Missionary 
Society, for this organization would not commission a slave- 
holder or aid a church which contained slaveholding mem- 
bers. " Out of this struggle the New School Synod came 
out a very small band." 107 

The Congregational Church was known in the State as 
an abolitionist body, and was regarded with little favor in 
Missouri as a whole, although it was fairly strong in St. 
Louis. 108 In 1847 tne Reverend Truman M. Post was called 

106 Barus, p. 770. Dr. Scarritt pleaded for the Union in i860. 

107 Reverend T. Hill, Historical Outlines of the Presbyterian 
Church in Missouri, A Discourse delivered at Springfield, Mo., 
Oct. 13, 1871. Pp. 27-28. Hill states that the Missouri Home Mis- 
sionary Society permitted slaveholders to represent them, but that 
the American Home Missionary Society demanded that even this 
society conform to its regulations. This resulted in the formation 
of the Home Missionary Committee, " which entered upon its work 
with immediate success" (ibid.). 

108 A good idea of this feeling toward the Congregational Church 
can be gained by reading the "Ten Letters on the Subject of Slavery" 
(1855), by the Reverend N. L. Rice of the Second Presbyterian 
Church of St. Louis ; note especially p. 24. He argued that all agita- 
tion of the slavery issue should be suppressed. 



SLAVERY ISSUE IN POLITICS AND CHURCHES I 33 

to the Third Presbyterian Church of St. Louis. This 
organization became the First Congregational Church, and 
was very antislavery in feeling. Dr. Post, because of his 
slavery views, looked upon the call with some misgivings, 
whereupon two of the leading members, Dr. Reuben Knox 
and Mr. Moses Forbes, wrote him advising his acceptance. 
Dr. Knox even alleged that the few slaveholding members 
were "mostly as anti-slavery as you or I, and long to see 
the curse removed." 109 Even before foreign immigration 
came to St. Louis in such large numbers there was appar- 
ently a strong antislavery body in the city which had 
migrated thither from the Northern and the border 
States. 110 

109 Reuben Knox to Post, February 15, 1847. " You may perhaps 
be of the number," he wrote, " who suppose we are not allowed to 
speak for ourselves and hardly think our own thoughts in the slave 
state and among slaveholders, but you need not fear. Though we 
have three or four families who own slaves, they are mostly as anti- 
slavery as you or I, and long to see the curse removed" (T. A. 
Post, Truman M. Post, p. 151). The same day Moses Forbes wrote 
Dr. Post : " You are looked upon as opposed to the system and as 
feeling it your duty to preach upon the subject as upon the other 
great moral and political evils and sins, and that for the wealth of 
the Indies you would not consent to be muzzled. At the same time 
you are not viewed as being so exclusive as to suppose there are 
no Christians who own slaves, or so unwise as not to use good judg- 
ment and sound discretion as to times and seasons, ways and means 
of treating the subject and removing the evil" (ibid., pp. 151-15-2)- 

110 A portion of the St. Louis press from the middle forties on 
was antislavery. It was apparently not until the fifties that the dis- 
tinction between the abolitionists and the mere antislavery sympa- 
thizers was denied. The Kansas struggle largely caused this revul- 
sion of feeling against any one not pronounced in his proslavery 
views. 



CHAPTER V 
Senator Benton and Slavery 

Returning to the field of politics, it may be observed that 
the state legislature took little official notice of the Gar- 
risonian program till the congressional debates raging about 
the abolition petitions and the use of the mails to scatter 
antislavery literature had stirred the whole land. On 
February i, 1837, a law was passed which subjected to fine 
and imprisonment "any person [who] shall publish, cir- 
culate, or utter by writing, speaking, or printing any facts, 
arguments, reasoning, or opinions, tending directly to excite 
any slave or slaves, or other person of color, to rebellion, 
sedition, ... or murder, with intent to excite such slave or 
slaves." The punishment for the first offence was to be a 
fine of one thousand dollars and imprisonment for not more 
than two years, for the second offence imprisonment for not 
more than twenty years, and for the third, imprisonment 
for life. 1 Although several individuals were punished for 
attempts to run slaves over the borders, there is a dearth of 
records dealing with prosecutions under the statute of 1837, 
but what the law failed to accomplish popular feeling 
effected, and several persons were forced to flee the State 
for airing their antislavery views. 2 

An idea of the feeling of insecurity caused by the aboli- 
tion crusade can be gained from the fact that the above law 
passed the House of Representatives by a vote which was 
unanimous — 61 to o. 3 George Thompson states that while 
he and his companions were prisoners at Palmyra in 1841, 

1 Session Laws, 1836, p. 3. 

2 See above, pp. 118, 120. 

3 House Journal, 9th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 383. This law passed the 
House on January 28, 1837, and the Senate on December 23, 1836 
(Senate Journal, gth Ass., 1st Sess., p. 147). The vote in the Senate 
is not given. 

134 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 1 35 

their counsel informed them that it was a violation of the 
Missouri law to read even the Declaration of Independence 
or the Bible to a slave. 4 On February 12, 1839, the As- 
sembly passed resolutions protesting against the efforts of 
the North to interfere with "the domestic policy of the 
several states." Each slave State would be forced to " look 
out for means adequate to its own protection, poise itself 
upon its reserved rights, and prepare for defending its 
domestic institutions from wanton invasion, whether from 
foreign or domestic enemies, peaceably if they can, forcibly 
if they must." 5 On February 2, 1841, the Assembly in 
joint session voted an address of thanks to President Van 
Buren for his " manly and candid course on the subject of 
abolitionism." For some unknown reason the vote was 
close — 47 to 43, ten members being absent. 6 Two weeks 
after this vote of thanks the legislature passed a series of 
resolutions condemning Governor Seward of New York for 
having demanded a jury trial before consenting to the rendi- 
tion of fugitive slaves. The Assembly declared that such 
a jury " frequently would be Abolitionists," and character- 

4 P. 60. 

5 Session Laws, 1838, p. 337. These resolutions read as follows : 
(1) As the Constitution does not deprive States of power to regu- 
late domestic slavery, it is a reserved right. (2) Interference by 
citizens of non-slaveholding States " is in direct contravention of 
the constitution of the United States . . . derogatory from the dig- 
nity of the slaveholding states, grossly insulting to their sovereignty 
and ultimately tending to destroy the union, peace and happiness of 
these confederated states." (3) They approved the course of the 
southern representatives in Congress. (4) They viewed " the active 
agents [abolitionists] in this country in their nefarious schemes to 
subvert the fundamental principles of this government" as destructive 
of our "domestic peace and reign of equal law." (5) The slave 
States had " no other safe alternative left them but to adopt some 
efficient policy by which their domestic institutions may be protected 
and their peace, happiness, and prosperity restored." (6) Copies 
were to be sent to each governor and member of Congress. 

6 House Journal, nth Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 342-343- In his reply to 
Goode on February 2, 1855, J. S. Rollins said that the Democrats 
voted unanimously for this Address (ibid., p. 14). Most of the 
Whigs must therefore have opposed the measure, undoubtedly rather 
through enmity to Van Buren and Van Buren politics than through 
any love for abolitionists. 



I36 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

ized Seward's action as " frivolous and wholly unworthy 
of a statesman." 7 

Some conception of the grip with which the State was 
held by slavery can be gained from the action of the con- 
stitutional convention which assembled at Jefferson City in 
November, 1845. A reporter at the convention wrote as 
follows on November 24: "Mr. Ward presented a petition 
from one solitary individual, on the subject of the abolition 
of slavery. He remarked that he arose to perform a deli- 
cate duty — present a petition on the subject of abolition, 
containing 27 reasons. Every person who knew him, was 
aware of his opposition to abolitionism in every shape. He 
wanted to get rid of the petition, and therefore he moved 
to lay it on the table." Mr. Ewing then moved that it be 
not received. The vote was unanimously in favor of this 
motion — 64 to o. " Mr. Hunter called for ayes and noes 
that the world might know the sentiment of this body on the 
subject of abolitionism." 8 The subjects of abolition or of 
emancipation did not again appear before the convention. 
The actual provisions of the constitution of 1845 relating 
to the negro deserve some further consideration. 

Although this constitution was defeated, its failure was 
due to causes other than the slavery sections, which were 
identical with those of the constitution of 1820. The 
changes were leveled at the free negro rather than at the 
slave. For example, to article iii, section 26, paragraph i, 
was added a clause compelling the removal of newly eman- 
cipated negroes from the State. The same clause was also 

7 Session Laws, 1840, pp. 236-237. 

8 Jefferson Inquirer, November 26, 1845. See also the Journal of 
the Constitutional Convention of 1845, p. 38. Two members were 
absent when the above vote was taken. The proceedings of the con- 
vention are briefly given in the above Journal. The full debates can 
be found in the Jefferson Inquirer of November 19, 22, 26, 29, De- 
cember 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, 31, 184S, January 5, 9, 1846. The con- 
stitution can be found in the Journal and in the Jefferson Inquirer 
of January 21, 1846. This constitution was defeated by "about 9000 
votes" in a poll of "about 60,000" (Switzler, p. 259). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 137 

added to paragraph iv of the same section. This evident 
satisfaction of the convention with the old provisions im- 
plies that the public may have been similarly minded. The 
vote on the various paragraphs cannot be learned as they 
were not passed on singly. 

Reviewing the discussion thus far as a whole, and bring- 
ing it to a point, it is evident that from the later territorial 
days Missouri was largely inhabited by a citizenship which 
came from slaveholding communities. Arriving in Missouri 
already acclimated to the economic and social atmosphere 
of a slave society, and themselves possessing considerable 
slave property, it can hardly be conceived that these people 
would immediately turn their backs on the traditions which 
they so dearly loved and renounce a system which not only 
involved a great amount of capital, but was the only source 
of labor then available. 

This early period of Missouri slavery sentiment and its 
influence upon politics and religion conveniently closes with 
the opening of the Mexican War. It is marked by western 
good humor and fair play toward the negro, if not always 
toward the political opponent. One event after another set 
the populace in a furor. Emancipationists and even a few 
abolitionists there were in the State throughout these years, 
and the Colonization Society was fairly well supported. 10 
But agitation for emancipation was more common among 
individuals than in political parties, and that general eman- 
cipation could have taken place before 1861 does not seem 
probable to the present writer. 

The annexation of Texas early engaged the attention of 
the State. On November 18, 1844, Governor Marmaduke 
in his last message to the legislature made a plea for an- 
nexation. He argued that many Missourians had settled in 

9 Journal of the Convention, app., p. 43- The vote on article iii 
is given in ibid., pp. 241-242. It is interesting to note that the old 
trouble-making clause forbidding free negroes to enter the State 
was placed in this constitution (art. iv, sec. 2, par. i), but with the 
condition that it was not to "conflict with the laws of the United 
States" (ibid.). 

10 See ch. vii of this study. 



I38 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Texas, 11 that its markets were valuable, and that if the 
United States did not act it might either become a prey to 
the English or to the savages. In this message there is no 
reference to slavery. 12 Two days later the new governor, 
Edwards, sent his message to the Assembly, but it took no 
notice whatever of the Texas question. 13 The thoughts of 
the State, however, were on the new republic, for on No- 
vember 26, 1844, Ellis introduced in the Senate joint resolu- 
tions relative to annexation. 14 These strongly favored that 
action, approved Senator Atchison's vote on the Texan 
treaty in the Federal Senate, opposed a division of Texas 
into free and slave States, and declared that the decision of 
the question of slavery should be left to the citizens of 
Texas. 15 Resolutions appeared in the House on November 
29, December 9, and December 12, also favoring annexa- 
tion. 16 After various amendments and substitutes had been 
proposed, Gamble, on December 12, offered ten resolutions 
which condemned the Texan treaty as " an intrigue for the 
Presidency," provided that the boundary of Texas should 
not exceed in extent the largest State in the Union, and 
declared that Benton's vote against the treaty " was in strict 
conformity with the sovereign will of Missouri." 17 After 
a protracted debate these resolutions were rejected on De- 
cember 18 by a vote of 63 to 27, ten members not being 
present. 18 These resolutions were so conglomerate that this 
vote cannot be taken as a gauge of sentiment against Benton. 

11 " During the last two weeks, a vast number of families have 
passed through this place for Texas. . . . They are principally from 
. . . this State and Illinois" (Jefferson Inquirer, November 6, 1845). 
A party of from fifty to a hundred was solicited in St. Louis in 1840 
to settle on a tract of land near Nacogdoches (Daily Pennant [St. 
Louis], November 3, 1840). 

12 House Journal, 13th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 18-19. 

13 Ibid., pp. 27-37. 

14 Ibid., p. 56. The vote on these resolutions in the Senate varied 
from 26 to 6 on the second and third ballots to 18 to 14 on the sixth. 
There were eight in all (ibid., pp. 100-102). 

15 House Journal, 13th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 108-111. The above 
Senate Resolutions are given in full on these pages. 

16 House Journal, 13th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 70, 108-111, 120-122. 

17 Ibid., pp. 120-122. 

18 Ibid., p. 136. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 1 39 

On the same day that Gamble's resolutions failed the original 
Senate resolutions relative to annexation passed by a margin 
of 55 to 25, nineteen members being absent. 10 

In this Texas agitation the legislature was following 
rather than leading the State. On June 8, 1844, the De- 
mocracy of St. Louis city and county passed resolutions 
demanding the " reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexa- 
tion of Texas at the earliest practicable period." "We 
pledge ourselves," they boasted, " not to be behind the fore- 
most in the contest . . . until the stars and stripes shall wave 
in triumph over the Union with Texas included." 20 It will 
soon be seen that their jingoism was not mere froth. Not 
only Democrats but Whigs as well were most enthusiastic 
in the cause of Texas from this time till the close of the 
Mexican War. 

The demand of Missouri, and in fact of the whole South- 
west, for Texas was probably due in greater degree to native 
love of expansion for its own sake than to any desire for 
new slave territory. The poverty of the exhausted soil and 
the need of fresh acres might have influenced portions of the 
old South, but Missouri was in 1844 still in the exploitative 
stage, and the economic pressure could not have been severe. 
This western democracy was indignant at outside, and espe- 
cially at northern, dictation. Annexation made a good 
campaign issue, even for home use. There is indication 
that it was employed for this purpose in the resolutions of a 
meeting in favor of the annexation of Texas held in Greene 
County in April, 1845. The declaration runs: "Resolved, 
That we look upon the re-annexation of Texas to the United 
States as a measure calculated to reunite the democratic 
party of this State." 21 

The later course of the Texan question and the war in 
which it culminated appealed with particular force to the 

19 House journal, 13th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 140. This vote has been 
analyzed by H. Tupes, The Influence of Slavery upon Missouri Poli- 
tics pp 21-25 The Whigs and nine Democrats voted in the negativ.-. 

20 Western Pioneer (Liberty), June 21, 1844- This newspaper 
strongly advocated annexation. 

21 Jefferson Inquirer, April 17, 1845- 



I4O SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Missourians. Switzler mentions the enthusiasm with which 
the State raised troops for this conflict. 22 Irrespective of 
party affiliation, the flower of Missouri enlisted. Such 
prominent Whigs as A. W. Doniphan were among the 
leaders of the State in this war. Missouri furnished 6733 
of the 71,309 volunteers who enlisted during the Mexican 
War. Only two States, Louisiana and Texas, furnished 
more, and they were much closer to the seat of war than 
was Missouri. 23 In 1840 the white population of Missouri 
was but one forty-fifth of that of the whole country, never- 
theless that State furnished one eleventh of the nation's 
volunteers in the Mexican War. 24 

The Wilmot Proviso was most distasteful to the Demo- 
cratic party of Missouri. Benton disliked the act because it 
stirred up the slavery issue. The proslavery wing of the 
party was indignant because the bill sought to restrict the 
system in the Territories. The General Assembly on Feb- 
ruary 15, 1847, passed instructions to the Missouri senators 
in Washington to vote according to the spirit of the Missouri 
Compromise, which of course was considered as at variance 
with the Wilmot Proviso. 25 Popular sentiment, however, 
seems to have viewed the proviso with less fear than did the 
legislature. On January 8, 1848, a meeting of St. Louis 

22 Pp. 260-263. Switzler speaks from personal observation. 

23 Adjutant General's Report of April 5, 1848 (Executive Docu- 
ments, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. viii, pp. 45, 76, Doc. no. 62). 
Louisiana furnished 7728 volunteers, Texas 7313, Georgia 2047, Ken- 
tucky 4800, Virginia 1303, Illinois 5973, Ohio 553°, New York 2665, 
Massachusetts 1047, and so on (ibid., pp. 28-49). For the enthusiasm 
of the South and the West for the Mexican War see W. E. Dodd, 
" The West and the War with Mexico," in Journal of the Illinois 
State Historical Society, vol. v, no. 2, p. 162. 

24 The white population of the United States in 1840 was 14581,453, 
and that of Missouri 323,888 (Sixth Federal Census, Population, 
pp. 476, 418). 

25 " Be it enacted : 1. That the peace, permanency and welfare of 
our National Union depend upon the strict adherence to the letter 
and spirit" of the Compromise of 1820. 2. "That our Senators in 
the Congress of the United States are hereby instructed and our 
Representatives requested, to vote in accordance with the provisions 
and spirit of the said . . . act, in all questions which may come 
before them in relation to the organization of new Territories or 
States" (Session Laws, 1846, pp. 367-368). These resolutions were 
considered a victory for Benton and his faction. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 141 

Democrats was held in the court house rotunda. Trusten 
Polk and Frank Blair were among those present. Judge 
Mullanphy offered the following special resolution : " Re- 
solved, That the declaration of the Congress of the United 
States ' that war existed by act of Mexico ' ' is true.' " Re- 
garding the proviso this meeting made a declaration which 
was evidently so worded as to save Benton, whose attitude 
upon the question had caused much criticism in the State. 
The fifth of the thirteen resolutions read as follows: "Re- 
solved, That as we are now approaching a period when the 
struggle for the control of the Government is again to be 
contested by the Federalists, we think it time to give over 
disputes in Congress ; upon such abstractions as the Wilmot 
Proviso ... we think this [absurd Proviso] has lived long 
enough, and time sufficient has elapsed to enable every man 
to perceive the folly of it." 26 

A bitter struggle, however, developed over the proviso. 
Some in the State even favored disunion, if a prominent 
contemporary, Colonel W. F. Switzler, interpreted the 
period correctly. 27 This intense feeling is reflected in a 

26 The Address, Resolutions, and Proceedings of the Democracy 
of St. Louis, in the Rotunda of the Court House, January 8, 1848. 
pp. 6-8. Attached to the account of this meeting are comments 
from the Daily Union of January 10. One of these reads as follows : 
" The Wilmot proviso is properly stigmatized by the St. Louis 
Democracy as an act of folly— a miserable stalking horse, on which 
a few small politicians have mounted. . . . The true doctrine on the 
Slavery question, is:— The Federal Government must keep hands 
off— leave it to be controlled by the people in the several States and 
Territories, as a local matter" (ibid., p. 8). Regarding local opinion 
relative to the justice of the Mexican War, this strong statement 
is made : " Here [in St. Louis] no Democrat hesitates for a moment, 
to declare that the war in which we are now engaged, was forced 
upon us by Mexico. . . . Indeed, that feeling extends beyond the 
Democratic ranks ; and many of the most intelligent and patriotic 
Whigs openly avow their detestation of Clay, Webster, and Corwin s 

sentiments" (ibid., p. 7)- _ . , UA!t , nt 

27 " It was quite natural," says Switzler, that a large portion of 
the people of Missouri without regard to party distinctions should 
share these convictions with varying degrees of intensity, borne, it 
is true, were so wedded to the institution of slavery that rather than 
abandon it in Missouri even through the process of gradua emanci- 
pation or submit to an act of Congress prohibiting it irl the ^n 
tories they seemed willing to abandon and even to adopt measures 
to disrupt, the National Union itself" (pp. 264-265). Some idea of 



142 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

letter written 'by F. P. Blair, Sr., in January, 1849: "Frank 
[F. P. Blair, Jr.] writes me from St. Louis that his legisla- 
ture will instruct him against the Wilmot Proviso — in which 
case Frank insists he ought to resign or . . . make an appeal 
to the people of Missouri." 28 This declaration was made 
about the same day that the so-called "Jackson " Resolutions 
against Benton were introduced into the Missouri Senate 
(January 1), and brought to pass the "Appeal" of that 
senator from his legislative instructions to the people of the 
State. 

The protracted debate and intense excitement growing out 
of the pertinacity of the Wilmot Proviso brought Benton's 
political record squarely before the people on the eve of his 
sixth attempt to represent Missouri in the United States 
Senate. Since the events leading up to and concerning 
Benton's defeat have been treated by several authorities, 29 
it will be the province of this study to take up the various 
political struggles only in so far as they are affected by the 
slavery issue. Some writers maintain that slavery in itself 
was the cause of Benton's fall, while others would have it 
that those of the rising generation who had political ambi- 
tions, jealous of his dictatorship, and grieved by their ex- 
clusion from public affairs, had most to do with overturning 

the feeling of the radical element in Missouri can be gained from a 
resume of Senator Atchison's speech against the proviso in the 
Federal Senate as it is given in the Jefferson Inquirer of June 22, 
1850. In the same year a Clay County meeting bitterly condemned 
both abolitionists and disunionists, and also declared that they re- 
garded the " Wilmot Proviso and all kindred measures with the 
most perfect abhorrence" (quoted in the History of Clay and Platte 
Counties, pp. 155-156). The date of this meeting is not given. 

28 MS. F. P. Blair, Sr., to Van Buren, January 6, A. L. S. [Auto- 
graph Letter Signed], Van Buren Papers, vol. lvi. 

29 The best account is that of P. O. Ray, The Repeal of the Mis- 
souri Compromise, Its Origin and Authorship, ch. i. Ray, however, 
used no manuscript sources, and the questionable thesis that Atchi- 
son originated the repeal engages most of his attention. The subject 
is also treated by W. M. Meigs, The Life of Thomas Hart Benton, 
ch. xxi. Meigs's materials were also limited. In his Thirty Years' 
\ ie\v Benton makes no comments on his retirement from the Senate. 
Switzler does not give much light on the subject. Neither does 
Roosevelt or Rogers in his biography of Benton. The press of the 
period is too bitterly partisan to be of great assistance. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 



143 



his power. The arguments of this chapter will go to show 
that both of these elements enter into the fight. The slavery 
question seems to have been the real vital force behind 
the struggle, although the personal equation of Benton's im- 
periousness cannot be overlooked. 

It was said that of all his colleagues in the Senate Dr. 
Linn alone was treated with consideration by Benton. The 
man who dared to look Andrew Jackson in the eyes and 
who would as soon meet his opponents with pistols as with 
eloquence was not the man to brook criticism from local 
politicians. His arrogance is said to have been supreme. 
"In 1828," declared Lewis V. Bogy, "Col. Benton sent a 
series of instructions addressed to Spencer Pettus, then 
Secretary of State, in his own hand writing, and told the 
Legislature that they were not to cross a T or dot an I, 
but they must be passed as sent." 30 Benton's friend, the 
editor of the Jefferson Enquirer, lamented that his enemies 
had seized " upon his traits of character, and upon what 
they call his vanity, egotism, and self conceit," and admitted 
that he was not " infallible " on these points. 31 The Whigs 
had had little use for Benton for a generation. One Whig 
editor warned his party not to aid the Benton wing of the 
Democrats. " Benton," he wrote, " has ruled this state, for 
thirty years with a despotism rarely equalled, in any 
country." 32 

From 1820 to 1844 Benton's control was hardly ques- 
tioned. His hold on his party, despite the fact that he took 
little interest in Missouri politics, was undoubtedly due to 
the pride which his constituents felt in a statesman whose 
national prominence shed such lustre on a new and western 
State. The old settlers worshipped a Missourian who was 

30 Speech of Colonel Lewis V. Bogy, the Democratic nominee for 
Congress. . . . Delivered at the Rotunda [of the Court House] May 
27, 1852, pamphlet, p. II. President Polk in his Diary for March 29, 
1847, speaks of Benton's "domineering disposition and utter im« 
patience of contradiction or difference of opinion" (The Diary ot 
James K. Polk During His Presidency, vol. ii, p. 445)- 

31 Issue of January 18, 1851. 

32 Weekly Missouri Sentinel, August 28, 1852. 



144 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

the equal of Clay and Webster in debate and who feared 
not to castigate Calhoun for his nullification program, but 
with the debate on the Texan Treaty of 1844 and the 
Wilmot Proviso a radical proslavery wing of the Demo- 
cratic party developed which realized that its first task was 
to unseat Benton. The situation is very hard to analyze 
because of the bitterness on both sides. Benton's enemies 
covered whatever personal animus and rivalry they might 
have borne him with the cloak of the slavery issue. To 
extricate the slavery needle from the haystack of political 
furor which buried Missouri from 1849 to 1852 is most 
difficult. That Benton's whole slavery vote and policy were 
contrary to those of a large portion of his own party in 
Missouri is certain. To what extent this fact was used by 
his enemies both within the State and without deserves some 
attention. 

Benton's position on the various great political struggles 
revolving about the slavery issue was quite consistent. He 
opposed the Texan Treaty of 1844 which all knew meant 
war with Mexico. " Atlantic politicians," he said on June 
10, 1844, "hot in pursuit of Texas, may have no sympathy 
for this Mexican trade, but I have ! and it is my policy to 
reconcile the two objects — acquisition of Texas and the 
preservation of the Mexican trade — and, therefore, to 
eschew unjust war with Mexico as not only wicked but 
foolish. ... I am for treating her with respect, and obtain- 
ing her consent fairly and honorably ... to the annexation 
of Texas." 33 Benton opposed the war with Mexico up to 
its declaration. 34 " Col. Benton called . . . and I gave him 
a copy of the message ' declaring war on Mexico,' " wrote 
President Polk in his diary for May 11, 1846. "I found 
he did not approve it in all its parts. He was willing to vote 

33 T. H. Benton, Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, vol. xv, 
P- 145. 

34 Polk, who loved the Texan Treaty much and Benton little, says 
that the latter was sorry for his opposition to the treaty. " Col. 
Benton feels he has lost cast[e] with Democracy on the Texan 
question, and feels sore and dissatisfied with his position" (Diary 
for March 4, 1846, vol. i, p. 265). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 145 

men and money for defence of our territory, but was not 

prepared to make aggressive war on Mexico I inferred 

too, from his conversation that he did not think the territory 
of the United States extended west of the Nueces River." 35 
After war had been declared, however, Benton became quite 
enthusiastic. He advised Polk that a general-in-chief should 
be appointed, " a man of talents and resources as well as a 
military man," and modestly intimated to the President that 
"if such an officer was created by Congress, he would be 
willing to accept the command himself." Polk continues: 
" He [Benton] alluded to what was apparent to every one, 
that the Whigs were endeavoring to turn this war to party 
account. ... I [Benton] have returned. . .to Washington 
to render you any aid in my power." 36 Benton received an 
appointment but without the plenary powers which he 
desired. Congress was unwilling to create the office of 
lieutenant-general, to which Polk intended to appoint 
Benton. Polk did, however, appoint him major-general 
and his appointment was confirmed by the Senate, but 
Benton refused to accept unless he was placed in supreme 
command and also given full diplomatic powers. Polk con- 
cluded that he had no right to put him over the four major- 
generals already in the field. 

Benton played the patriot and supported the war when it 
actually took place, but he was never reconciled to either 
the justice or the expediency of the enterprise, and re- 
peatedly accused Calhoun of causing it. 37 From the day he 
opposed the Texan Treaty his enemies gave him no peace. 
"There is cogent logic," ran an editorial of June, 1844, "as 
well as a severe rebuke in the . . . letter of the 'Hero of 
New Orleans' [Jackson's letter of February, 1843, favoring 
annexation, which was published in 1844] that must have 
been gall and wormwood to Benton. Jackson has fixed the 

35 Diary, vol. i, p. 390. 

36 Ibid., for November 10, 1846, vol. ii. pp. 227-228. 

37 See Benton's speech in the Senate, Fel ruary 24, 1847 (Con- 
gressional Globe, 29th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 497-498) : also his Jeffer- 
son City Speech of May 26, 1849 (see note 44 of this chapter). 



I46 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

stigma on Benton's recreant brow — let it rest there for- 
ever." 38 Other papers and individuals as well were dis- 
gusted with Benton's stand on the whole Texan question. 89 

The Compromise of 1850 was generally popular with the 
Missouri Democracy. Benton, however, opposed most of 
its provisions. He decried compromise on principle. 
" Clay is destroying the Union with his humbug com- 
promises," he wrote Clayton in December, 1850. 40 Among 
the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 which he disliked 
was that which dealt with slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia. He maintained that Congress had the power to 
abolish slavery in the District, " but," he said, " I am one of 
those who believe that it ought not to be touched while 
slavery exists in the States from which the District was 
ceded." 41 

Benton was also against " mixing up the question of 
admitting California with all the questions which slavery 
agitation has produced in the United States. ... I asked 
for California a separate consideration." 42 He argued that 
slavery was already abolished in the territories acquired 
from Mexico. He then read the Mexican Decree of 
Emancipation of 1829 and the article of the Mexican con- 
stitution of 1843 which forbade slavery in all the Mexican 
territories. " The practical application which I make of this 
exposition of law is," he continued, " that the proviso 

38 Western Pioneer, June 21, 1844. The Pioneer likewise spoke 
of Benton's Texas position as giving him the nature of a " self- 
executioner" (ibid.). 

39 A mass-meeting held at St. Genevieve on January 8, 1845, passed 
resolutions favoring " the principles of the Tyler Treaty." They 
praised Atchison's and condemned Benton's vote on the treaty, 
claiming that the latter " did not cast the vote of Missouri " on that 
occasion. " We approve the vote of our State Senator, Hon. C. 
Detchemendy, against the reelection of Col. Benton" (Missouri 
Reporter [St. Louis], January 18, 1845). This sheet spoke of Ben- 
ton's Texan position as " treason," and condemned him for not 
obeying his instructions on annexation (ibid., January 4, 1845). 

40 MS. Benton to John M. Clayton, December 8, 1850, A. L. S., 
Clayton Papers, vol. viii, p. 1803. 

41 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. i, p. 712. Speech 
of April 11, 1850. 

42 Ibid., p. 656. Speech of April 8, 1850. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 



H7 



[Wilmot's] of which we have heard so much is of no force 
whatever — unnecessary from any point of view — and of no 
more effect, if passed, than a blank piece of paper pasted on 
the statute book." He declared that positive law alone 
could introduce slavery into California and New Mexico. 43 
Distasteful as this whole argument, with its conclusion, must 
have been to many of his constituents, Benton continued to 
preach it, and even elaborated it in his Jefferson City speech 
of May 26, 1849. 44 

As to a fugitive slave law, Benton urged an " efficient and 
satisfactory " act, but " it must be as a separate and inde- 
pendent measure." He believed that the seduction of slaves 
was " the only point ... at which any of the non-slave- 
holding States, as States, have given just cause of com- 
plaint to the slave-holding States." 45 

When the movement for the acquisition of the 54 : 40 line 
and the demand for " all of Oregon " appeared, Benton was 
likewise in opposition while the Missourians clamored for 
the Columbia River country. 46 In his speech at Jefferson 
City, mentioned above, Benton said that his position on the 
slavery question had been consistent. " In my vote on the 
Oregon bill," he declared, "in which I opposed the intro- 
duction of slavery there — and, again in my letter to the 
people of Oregon ... I declared myself to be no propa- 
gandist of slavery." He did not stop here, but openly 
decried the system: "My personal sentiments, then, are 
against the institution of slavery, and against its intro- 

43 Ibid., pp. 430-432. Speech of February 2T, 1850. 

44 Speech Delivered by the Hon. Thomas H. Benton at Jefferson, 
the Capital of Missouri on the 26th of May, 1849. pamphlet, pp. 
11-12. This speech can also be found in Niles' Register, vol. lxxv, 

PP- 390-392, 397-399- „ . . , 

45 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. i, p. 657. 

40 Resolutions favoring the " reoccupation " of Oregon were com- 
mon throughout the State. On January 8, 1846, a great mass-meeting 
was held at Jefferson City where the state constitutional convention 
was then in session. Many of the convention delegates were present. 
Governor Marmaduke acted as chairman and J. S. Green as secre- 
tary. Resolutions demanding all of Oregon and endorsing the 
Monroe Doctrine were passed. President Polk was congratulated 
on the success of his Texas policy (Jefferson Inquirer, January 14, 
1846). 



I48 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

duction into places in which it does not now exist. If there 
was no slavery in Missouri today, I should oppose its com- 
ing in ... as there is none in New Mexico and California I 
am against sending it to those territories." 47 

Regarding the question of slavery in, and the power of 
Congress over, the Territories, Benton gave out what must 
have been unpalatable doctrine to his Jefferson City hearers. 
" It is absurd," he said, " to deny to Congress the power to 
legislate as it pleases upon the subject of slavery in the 
territories. . . . Congress has power to prohibit, or to admit 
slavery, and no one else. . . . Congress has the constitutional 
power to abolish slavery in [the] territories." 48 

Benton was no sentimental antislavery enthusiast. He 
had considerable slave property himself. " I was born to 
the inheritance of slaves," he said, " and have never been 
without them. I bought some but only at their own en- 
treaty. ... I have sold some, but only for misconduct. I 
had two taken from me by the Abolitionists, and never in- 
quired after them ; and liberated a third who would not go 
with them. ... I have slaves in Kentucky. ... I have slaves 
in Washington City — perhaps the only member of Congress 
who has any there." 49 

Benton's whole attitude toward slavery was open to the 
world, and must have been anything but satisfactory to an 
influential portion of his party. There is, therefore, a 
reasonable basis for supposing that the opposition to him 
might well have been based, not immediately perhaps, but 
certainly ultimately, on the slavery issue. Of course this 
was by no means the only motive that caused his defeat. 
The personal and political bitterness was deep-seated, but 
Benton himself always thought that it was the disunion 
faction headed by Calhoun which brought about his 
downfall. 

To the southern radicals, with their doctrine of nullifica- 
tion and their hatred for his stalwart defence of the Union, 

47 Jefferson City Speech, p. 17. 

48 Ibid., p. 11. 

49 Ibid., p. 17. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 



I49 



Benton laid the charge of seeking his ruin by undermining 
him at home. From the day when he and Jackson " were 
made friends together" the rift between the Jacksonian 
Unionists and the Calhoun " Nullifiers " was never closed. 
In the open Senate on March 2, 1847, Benton formally 
charged Calhoun with conspiring to consummate his defeat.' 
His speeches of the following years are burdened with the 
most abusive denunciations of Calhoun and the latter's 
famous Resolutions of 1847, the prototype of the so-called 
" Missouri " or " Jackson " Resolutions to which attention 
will be called later. 51 Benton so hated and abominated 
Calhoun that he severely criticized President Shannon of 
the State University for placing Calhoun's newly published 
works in the University library. 52 Calhoun, on his part, 
denied any complicity in the imaginary conspiracies to unseat 
Benton. "He [Benton] seems to think," wrote the former, 
" I stand in his way, and that I am ever engaged in some 
scheme to put him down. I, on the contrary, have never 
for a moment thought of raising him to the level of a com- 
petitor, or rival ; nor considered it of any importance to me 
whether he should be put down or not." 53 

There is some evidence, however, that Calhoun and other 
extreme southern leaders were at least corresponding with 
Benton's enemies at home who had his defeat as their chief 
political goal. Judge W. C. Price of Springfield, who claims 
to have been Benton's arch-opponent in Missouri, states that 
he opened the fight against Benton in 1844. The judge, 
according to his own story, was in constant communication 
with Calhoun, Davis, Benjamin, and other extremists of the 
South. He declared that it was in 1844, at a time when 
Benton refused to aid in the repeal of the Missouri Com- 



50 Congressional Globe, 29th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 563- 

51 See the whole of the Jefferson City Speech, and that dd 

at Fayette on September I, 1849, which may be found in the Jeffer- 
son Inquirer of October 6, 1840. 

52 Letter of Shannon of July 26, 1852, in the Missouri Weekly 
Sentinel of August 12, 1852. 

53 John C. Calhoun to the People of the Southern States, Or Reply 
to Benton, pamphlet, p. I. 



I50 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

promise in order to save Missouri from a free-soil neighbor 
to the west, that he declared war on the latter and worked 
incessantly to undermine him. 54 These reminiscences need 
not be taken too seriously. Benton's stand on the Texan 
Treaty had already given him bitter enemies, 55 and even 
earlier than this there was an active faction against him in 
his own party in the State. So perhaps Judge Price over- 
estimated his own importance in claiming to be the 
" original " anti-Benton man. 

There was in fact a distinct anti-Benton movement within 
the Democratic ranks of Missouri before the Texan Treaty 
came up. On July 5, 1843, one V. Ellis, a St. Louis Whig, 
wrote to George R. Smith relative to the appointment of 
certain Indian agencies, that " Benton's days are numbered. 
V. Buren has no chance for the nomination ... it shall 
not be my fault if things do not work right. Select Demo- 
crats in all cases, & such as are opposed to Benton." 56 In 
March, 1844, Charles D. Drake sent out printed instructions 
for the Whigs in the approaching presidential election. 
The Whigs were to launch an aggressive campaign, and, by 
dividing the Democrats, win. "Is there, or can there be 
created, such a division," said a portion of this suggestive 
query, " as would enable the Whigs by their votes to elect 
an anti-Benton man, ... or if no anti-Benton man can be 
found, one who will go with us on these measures? " 57 

Nevertheless, the stand of Benton on the Texas question 
can be considered as the real cause of the organized opposi- 
tion. "Ever since 1844, when Mr. Benton commenced 
opposing the Democratic party and its great measure . . . 
the annexation of Texas," said a published letter of 1857, 
"his followers have never doubted his position." 58 On 

54 Statement made by Price to W. F. Connelley and quoted by 
Ray, pp. 248-249. 

55 See the Western Pioneer of June 21, 1844, quoted above. 

56 MS. Smith Papers. . 

57 Printed letter in the Smith Papers. Dated March 19, 1844, and 
circulated by Drake as " Cor. Sec. St. Louis Clay Club." 

58 Printed letter of William Palm to C. C. Zeigler of the state 
legislature. Dated St. Louis, January 25, 1857. This same idea is 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 



151 



October 1, 1844, Benton was severely criticized at Han- 
nibal by one Davis, who answered him from the platform 
and declared that "he was dissatisfied, and others were dis- 
satisfied . . . with the Colonel's [Benton's] position on the 
subject of Texas." 59 

There is very substantial ground for presuming that 
Benton's enemies took advantage of his position on the 
slavery question in general and used it as a lever. Senator 
Atchison implied as much in a speech at Platte City on 
September 26, 1849. He said: "I have been and am now 
making war on him [Benton], Free Soilism, Abolitionism, 
and all similar isms ... and if he is not driven from the 
United States Senate, it will be no fault of mine." 80 The 
observations of Montgomery Blair, a shrewd man of affairs, 
leave the impression that the slavery issue was by no means 
the sole root of Benton's trouble. " I have no doubt," he 
wrote Martin Van Buren from St. Louis early in 1849, just 
after the passage of the "Jackson" Resolutions, "but that 
we can sustain Col. Benton ... his enemies are in the 
ascendant now in this State & it requires something potent 
to physic them with. Fortunately for him, I think, they 
have taken the Slavery chute, imagining that the safe 
channel, while the course of his old associates and his own 

given in the official anti-Benton campaign pamphlet of 1856, entitled, 
A Statement of Facts and a Few Suggestions in Review of Political 
Action in Missouri, p. 6. 

59 The Mill Boy (St. Louis), October 12, 1844. This was a St. 
Louis Whig organ. The account of the above meeting is as follows: 
On October 1 Benton spoke to a large audience at Hannibal, after 
which " Mr. Jamison, of Callaway, followed. . . . Mr. Jamison re- 
marked that if there were any persons present who were not satisfied 
with Col. Benton's course on the Texan question . . . the Colonel 
would be pleased to give further explanation. . . . Thereupon, Mr. 
Davis took the stand, and announced that he was dissatisfied, and 
other Democrats were dissatisfied . . . with the Colonel's position 
upon the subject of Texas, and especially with reference to the sub- 
ject of instructions by the legislature." Benton replied "that he 
did not desire instructions, and would not hold his seat when he 
believed he was not acting in conformity with the views of his 
party." 

60 Republican, October 6, 1849. 



!52 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

vote on the Oregon bill would they think effectually destroy 
him." 61 

As above quoted, Montgomery Blair is casually stating to 
a personal friend that Benton's enemies had chosen the 
" Slavery chute " as the most convenient exit by which to 
discharge him, evidently believing that Benton's slavery 
policy was not the real cause of the attack upon him. Even 
one of Benton's opponents, W. C. Price, acknowledged that 
it was not only because of their honest displeasure with his 
stand against slavery, but as much because of their jealousy 
of his dominance, that the enemies of Benton sought his 
downfall. 62 Benton himself thought that the slavery issue 
was a mere subterfuge to place him in a bad position. Cal- 
hounism and secession appeared to him as the sole inspira- 
tion of his enemies. "The slavery question," he wrote 
Clayton in 1855, " is a cover for the real motives which, with 
the politicians, [is] ambition — with the masses, [is] a belief 
that the Union works to the disadvantage of the South." 63 

The means used to force Benton to declare himself was 
the passage of the so-called "Jackson" Resolutions of 
1849. 64 Frank Blair and his St. Louis Bentonites openly 
charged the anti-Benton faction with this intent. " His 
[Benton's] friends will see at once," was the statement by 
Blair, "that those most busy in Missouri, in denouncing 
the proviso, are none others than Benton's old enemies, and 
although many of them are northern men, and must there- 
fore be disinclined to the extension of slavery ... it is 

61 MS. Van Buren Papers, dated St. Louis, March 12, vol. lvi, pp. 
13161-13162. 

62 Statement of Price, quoted by Ray, pp. 248-249. 

03 MS. Benton to Clayton, July 21, 1855, Clayton Papers, vol. xi, 
pp. 2107-2108. 

64 Regarding this point the Jefferson Inquirer stated editorially 
on August 20, 1853, that " the Jackson nullification resolutions were 
gotten up for this purpose [getting rid of Benton] and every Demo- 
crat who would not join in the crusade against Missouri's beloved 
statesman, was denounced as a free soil traitor." "The object of the 
anti-Benton proceedings, as we infer from the St. Louis Republican," 
comments Niles' Register, "[is] to cut off Col. Benton from, or 
commit the [democracy] against any appeal or justification which 
he may have to make for his course in the Senate on the Wilmot 
Proviso" (vol. lxxv, p. 288). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 153 

enough . . . that Benton voted for the proviso for Oregon, 
and denounced the attempt ... to carry slavery to the Pacific 
shore." 65 

The "Jackson" or " Jackson-Xapton " Resolutions have 
been discussed by almost every writer on Missouri history, 
hence elaborate consideration of the text of them would be 
out of place in a study merely of the slavery issue. Their 
origin, however, deserves attention. By chance Claiborne 
F. Jackson has often been given credit for these resolutions. 
but Judge William B. Xapton of Saline County, an old 
enemy of Benton, deserves the honor of originating them. 
The copy of a letter dated August 8, 1849, from Sterling 
Price to Benton conclusively proves that Xapton was the 
author, although at the time he seems to have denied it. In 
this letter Sterling Price asserted that Xapton drew them 
up during the winter of 1848-49 and told him (Price) that 
he expected that either Carty Wells or Claiborne F. Jackson 
would introduce them in the legislature. 66 

On January 1, 1849, the resolutions were introduced in 
the Senate by none other than Carty Wells of Marion 

65 F. P. Blair, Jr., and thirty-seven others, " Address to the De- 
mocracy of Missouri," pamphlet, p. 14. Date i85o(?). 

66 This letter was published by Benton in the Weekly Republican 
(St. Louis) of May 25, 1852. It is as follows: — 

" Yal Verde, Aug. 8, 1849. 
Hox. Thos. H. Bextox: 

"Dear Sir; having very recently seen a communication from Judge 
W. B. Xapton, replying to your charge, touching the points of issue 
between you. in which he evidently conveys the idea that he was not 
the author of the Missouri Resolutions, I feel constrained to offer 
my testimony; and thereby comply with the promise made when I 
last saw you. The facts are these; 

" During my visit to Jefferson City, last winter. Judge Xapton in- 
vited me into his room and showed me a set of resolutions which 
he informed me had been prepared by himself, and which I believe 
are the same which passed the Missouri Legislature. I will merely 




conceive it unnecessary to give his name . . . and I am sure he 
stands ready to corroborate, by his testimony my statement. In 
connection with my visit to Judge Xapton's room he informed me 
that his resolutions would be presented by either Carty Wells or 
Claiborne F. Jackson. I remain, with regard, your obedient servant, 

Sterlixg Price." 



154 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

County. 07 They were referred to the committee on Federal 
relations, and on January 15 were reported by its chairman, 
Claiborne F. Jackson. 08 This caused Jackson's name to be 
associated with them. Parallel resolutions were introduced 
in the House of Representatives on January 5. 69 Amend- 
ments, substitutes, and counter-resolutions were offered by 
the Whigs, who opposed the measure in both houses. On 
March 6 Jones proposed that Benton be commended for his 
"long and brilliant career in the Senate," whereupon 
Wilkerson offered an amendment approving of Senator 
Atchison's political record " generally, and particularly his 
course in reference to the subject of slavery." 70 On Jan- 
uary 26 the resolutions 71 as a whole passed the Senate by a 



67 Senate Journal, 15th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 64. 

68 Ibid., p. in. 

69 House Journal, 15th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 82. 

70 Ibid., pp. 490-491. 

71 These resolutions are as follows : — 

"Resolved, by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, 

" 1st. That the Federal Constitution was the result of a Compro- 
mise between the conflicting interests of the states which formed 
it, and in no part of that instrument is to be found any delegation 
of power to Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery, excepting 
some special provisions having in view the prospective abolition of 
the African slave trade and for the recovery of fugitive slaves. 
Any attempt therefore on the part of Congress to legislate on the 
subject so as to affect the institution of slavery in the States, in the 
District of Columbia, or in the Territories, is, to say the least, a 
violation of the principle upon which that instrument was founded. 

"2d. That the territories acquired by the blood and treasure of 
the whole nation ought to be governed for the common benefit of 
the citizens of all the states; and any organization of the territorial 
governments excluding the citizens of any part of the Union from 
removing to such territories with their property would be an exer- 
cise of power by Congress inconsistent with the spirit upon which 
our federal compact was based, insulting to the sovereignty and 
dignity of the States thus affected, calculated to alienate one portion 
of the Union from another, and tending ultimately to disunion. 

" 3d. That this General Assembly regard the conduct of the North- 
ern States on the subject of slavery as releasing the slaveholding 
States from all further adherence to the basis of compromise fixed 
on by the act of Congress of the 6th of March, 1820, even if such 
act ever did impose any obligation upon the slaveholding States, and 
authorizes them to insist on their rights under the Constitution ; but, 
for the sake of harmony and the preservation of our Federal Union, 
they will still sanction the application of the principle of the Mis- 
souri Compromise to the recent territorial acquisitions, if by such 
concession future aggression upon the equal rights of the States 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY I 5 5 

vote of 23 to 6, four members not being present. 72 Tbey 
passed the House on March 6 by a vote of 53 to 27, thirteen 
members being absent and sick. 73 Of these twenty-seven 
voting nay, Switzler, who was a Whig member, says that all 
but four were Whigs, and that seventeen members, all 
Whigs but two, voted " from first to last " against the 
resolutions. 74 

Benton refused to stand by the instructions which the 
resolves embodied, and made his celebrated " Appeal " to 
the voters of the State. 75 On May 26 he delivered his 

may be arrested and the spirit of antislavery fanaticism be ex- 
tinguished. 

" 4th. The right to prohibit slavery in any territory belongs exclu- 
sively to the people thereof, and can only be exercised by them in 
forming their constitution for a State government, or in their sov- 
ereign capacity as an independent State. 

" 5th. That in the event of the passage of any act conflicting with 
the principles herein expressed, Missouri will be found in hearty 
co-operation with the slaveholding States in such measures as may 
be deemed necessary for our mutual protection against the encroach- 
ments of Northern fanaticism. 

" 6th. That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Rep- 
resentatives be requested, to act in conformity with the foregoing 
resolutions." 

These resolutions may be found in Session Laws, 1848, p. 667; 
and in the Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 97798- 
They can also be found in almost any history of Missouri or biog- 
raphy of Benton. 

72 Senate Journal, 15th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 176. The vote on the 
individual resolutions was: first, 24 to 6, 3 absent; second, 25 to 5. 
3 absent; third, 23 to 7, 3 absent; fourth, 23 to 6, 4 absent; fifth, 
23 to 6, 4 absent ; sixth, 23 to 6, 4 absent. 

73 House Journal, 15th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 470-483. The vote on 
the individual resolutions was : first, 59 to 25, 9 absent ; second, 6.1 
to 21, 9 absent; third, 56 to 27, 9 absent; fourth, 62 to 29, 11 absent; 
fifth, 53 to 29, 12 absent; sixth, 54 to 27, 12 absent. 

74 See Switzler, pp. 267-268. Switzler himself was one of these. 
The committee of the House on Federal relations failed to agree; 
the proslavery minority report which was neutralized by an ex- 
pression of loyalty to the Union was defeated the day before this 
vote March 5, by a vote of 62 to 20 (ibid., p. 267). This report can 
be found in House Journal, 15th Ass., 1st Sess., app., pp. «£-««. 

75 His formal "Appeal" was dated St. Louis, May 9. 1849. It is given 
among other places in Niles' Register, vol. lxxv, p. 332. Benton s 
enemies claim that he was far from consistent on the question of 
legislative instruction. L. V. Bogy asserted that Benton had once 
written a Missouri friend that "the Legislature had a right to in- 
struct, and the Senator was in duty bound to obey the resolutions, 
or resign" (Bogy's Speech of May 27. 1852, at St. Louis p. 11 . 
Benton was very sensitive on the whole question, and sharply cr.ti- 



I56 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

famous "Calhounic" at Jefferson City. He accused the 
South Carolinian of undermining him in Missouri, casti- 
gated his local enemies, and gave an exposition of his own 
views regarding slavery. 78 When Benton made his "Ap- 
peal," not only he but as astute a politician as Montgomery 
Blair thought that he would be successful. "I have no 
doubt," wrote Blair, " but -that we can sustain Col. Benton 
in the doctrines here ascribed to him. ... I think now that 
they [Benton's enemies] have no longer the fostering care 
of Mr. Polk at Washington if Col. Benton will carry out 
his determination to visit the whole state [he will be able 
to] annihilate them with the questions which only need to 
be explained to be as strong with the people as the Bank 
question was. It must be confessed however that the work 
remains to be done, but I am strong in the faith that it will 
be accomplished." 77 Two months later Blair was still san- 
guine, though he could not overlook the obstacles with which 
the old warrior's way was beset. He wrote Van Buren: 
" I still think he will succeed although he has great diffi- 
culties to contend against," the greatest of these difficulties 
being his absence from and loss of touch with local politics ; 
in fact he had not "been in the State or made a political 
speech out of it for two years." 78 Just after his Jefferson 
City speech Benton was full of cheer, and wrote to F. P. 

cized President Shannon in 1852 for permitting a student at the 
last commencement to deliver an oration on The Right of Appeal. 
Shannon, however, denied that Benton's name had been mentioned 
in the speech (Weekly Missouri Sentinel, July 30, 1852). 

76 Printed in pamphlet form, as well as in the press, from which 
quotations have already been given in this chapter. 

77 MS. Montgomery Blair to Van Buren, dated St. Louis, March 
12, 1849, A. L. S., Van Buren Papers, vol. lvi, pp. 13161-13162. 

78 MS. ibid to ibid., May 12, 1849, A. L. S., Van Buren Papers, vol. 
lvi, pp. 13180-13182. Blair emphasizes this last point relative to 
Benton's loss of contact with the local situation : " The greatest of 
his difficulties has heretofore been that his feelings were so en- 
grossed in another quarter as almost entirely to withdraw his atten- 
tion from politics, & if he is defeated it will be mainly owing to that 
cause. For during the time when his enemies have possessed the 
general and State Governments & have been using incessant efforts 
against him, he has written but one private political letter and that 
containing but a few lines & he has not been in the State or made a 
political speech out of it for two years." 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY I 57 

Blair, Sr., "that he was never better received by his con- 
stituents." 79 In December even the hopeful Blairs were 
anxiously fearing a coalition of Whigs and anti-Benton- 
ites, 80 but as late as November, 1850, Benton wrote from 
Missouri that he was " victorious there." The two younger 
Blairs, however, were fearing that the " best that can happen 
will be no election." 81 Although Benton was defeated and 
a Whig took the seat he had so honored for thirty years, 
he was far from politically dead, as he himself viewed the 
situation. The fierce torrent which swirled about his " Ap- 
peal" was to convulse Missouri and split his party beyond 
repair. 

It is not the aim of this paper to follow Benton's cam- 
paign during 1849-50, but it is of importance to learn some- 
thing of the influence of his " Appeal " in moulding later poli- 
tics. In his Jefferson City speech he admitted that he had 
" no idea that the mass of the members who voted for the 
resolutions in the last General Assembly, had any idea that 
they were Calhoun's, or considered the dissolution of the 
Union which they announced, as a thing in actual contempla- 
tion. But they are not the less injurious on that account. 
They are the act of the General Assembly, and stand for 
the act of the State, and bind it to the car of Mr. Calhoun." 8 ' 
Nevertheless, in his speech at Fayette on September 1, 1849, 
he took a different view. "The whole conception, con- 
coction, and passage of the resolutions," he said, " was done 
upon conspiracy, perfected by fraud. It was a plot to get 

79 MS. F. P. Blair, Sr., to Van Buren, June 10, 1840, A. L. S., Van 
Buren Papers, vol. lvi, pp. I3I93-I3I94- On August 8 F. P. Blair, 
Sr., wrote Van Buren that " Benton plays his part like a great Bear 
surrounded by a yelping pack of whelps. He slaps one down on 
this side— another on that— and grips a third with his teeth— then 
tosses him with his snout" (A. L. S., ibid., pp. 13216-13218). 

80 MS. F. P. Blair, Sr., to Van Buren, December 3-4, 1849, A. L. 
S., Van Buren Papers, vol. lvii, pp. 13250-13251 ; also see ibid, to 
ibid., August I, 1850, A. L. S., ibid, pp. I3352-I3353- 

81 MS. ibid, to ibid., November 12, 1850, A. L. S, Van Buren 
Papers, vol. lvii, p. 13376- 

82 Jefferson City Speech, p. 9. 



I58 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

me out of the Senate and out of the way of the disunion 
plotters." 83 

During this campaign Benton was at once so extrava- 
gantly lauded and so scorchingly condemned that it is very 
hard to discern the real motives of the contestants. " We 
have already noticed the difficulty," said an editorial in the 
Missouri Republican of September 10, 1849, " which attends 
our purpose to give a faithful history of the quarrels be- 
tween Benton and his enemies in this State." A fair idea of 
the furor which swept over the State can be gained from the 
following account of a meeting held in St. Louis, February 
12, 1849. " The meeting was organized amid much con- 
fusion," and a committee was appointed to draft resolutions. 
The committee reported a series of resolutions declaring for 
the power of Congress over the Territories, denouncing the 
late Washington convention of southern men as a " Hart- 
ford Convention," and praising Benton for seeing the immi- 
nent danger which was threatening the Union. Amid con- 
fusion Mr. Hoyt offered the late ("Jackson") resolutions 
of the legislature. These were laid on the table by " a large 
majority." After this the Benton resolutions were carried. 84 
Throughout the State, resolves were drafted favoring Ben- 
ton and condemning him. Letters attacking him and letters 
taking his part and prints of speeches pro and con crowd the 
press of the years 1849-53. The editorial comments are at 
times so vitriolic as to appear amusing to those living in an 
age when personalities are not so important in politics. 85 

83 Jefferson Inquirer, October 6, 1849. At this meeting he was 
not well received, but at other points he evidently was. " Col. Ben- 
ton was here in Boonville making speeches in the vicinity," reads 
a letter of June, 1849, " and creating great excitement and confusion 
in the democratic ranks. I heard him yesterday at the Choteau 
Springs — his speech was very well rec[eive]d" (MS. Freeman Wing 
to Mrs. E. Ashley, June 24, A. L. S., J. J. Crittenden Papers). 

84 Niles' Register, vol. lxxv, pp. 239-240. 

85 At a Platte County meeting in July, 1849, among other resolu- 
tions passed was one calling upon Benton to obey his legislative 
instructions or else resign (Republican, July 16, 1849, quoting the 
Weston Platte Argus of unknown date). It was openly charged 
that Benton was in alliance with the abolitionists (letter dated St. 
Genevieve, September 30, 1849, in ibid., October 3). Such accusa- 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 



159 



The swirl of excitement engulfed even the Whigs them- 
selves. " And the Whigs," wrote a contemporary, " were to 
some extent divided into Benton and Anti-Benton Whigs, 
designations which attached to the one segment or the other 
according to the intensity of its pro-slavery or anti-slavery 
sentiments." 86 One gets a good deal of light on the position 
of the Whigs in this contest from the reply of James S. 
Rollins to Goode, a St. Louis Whig. 

Mr. Goode : " Though there was nothing in the resolu- 
tions ["Jackson"] in which he did not heartily concur, yet 
he deemed their introduction at the time was inexpedient." 

Mr. Rollins : " Every Whig in the General Assembly 
except the gentleman from Scott, (Mr. Darnes) voted 
against those resolutions when they were introduced. Their 
action was endorsed by every Whig newspaper in the State. 
Every Whig of prominence and distinction in Missouri 
sustained the action of their Representatives in this hall. 
Including our distinguished candidate for the Senate (Col. 
Doniphan)." 

Mr. Darnes said that the Whigs had approved his vote 
(above) and that "at public meetings of Whigs held shortly 
after the resolutions were passed in support of the Jackson 
resolutions and of his action in that hall." 

tions were common. Atchison so criticized him September 26, 1849 
(ibid., October 6, 1849). Adam Klippel of St. Joseph wrote S. P. 
Chase, September 14, 1849, that "nine out of 22 democratic papers 
in the State, it appears, are out against Benton, and are unbounded 
in villifying him" (Chase Correspondence, in American Historical 
Association Reports, 1902, vol. ii, pp. 471-472). During the session of 
1850-51 resolutions were introduced into the House condemning 
Benton for not obeying his instructions (House Journal, 16th Ass., 
1st Sess., app., p. 240). So bitter became the struggle that Frank 
Blair of the Republican and L. Pickering of the Daily Union almost 
came together with bowie knives on January 28. while the resolu- 
tions were still before the legislature (Daily Union, hebruary 3, 
1849). On March 5 they met on the corner of Olive and Second 
Streets and jabbed at one another with their umbrellas Pickering 
received an injury to one of his eyes (ibid., March 6). The trouble 
had started by Pickering's declaring that Blair s statement calling 
Benton a true Democrat was "twaddle at least, and only shows the 
littleness of the writer" (ibid., February 3)-. . 

se Switzler p 273. Colonel Switzler was in the legislature when 
the "Jackson" Resolutions were passed. As an editor he keenly 
observed the situation. 



l60 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Mr. Rollins : " But on that particular occasion I was with 
Col. Benton. The Whig party of Missouri was with Col. 
Benton upon that question, and against the anti-Benton 
wing of the Democratic party. I condemned the Jackson 
resolutions because they sprung a baleful agitation upon the 
State, and also because they embodied nullification and 
tended to disunion . . . the Whigs were united almost to a 
man on this question." 87 

The effects of Benton's " Appeal " were most important. 
The Democratic party was so riven by hatred and bitter- 
ness that the cleavage between slavery and antislavery be- 
came more and more distinct. Benton's failure of reelec- 
tion in 185 1 but aroused him and his friends to carry the 
war to the last extremity. To " put down Benton " was 
easier than to eradicate the force and pertinacity of his 
followers. Henceforward the anti-Bentonites became the 
active proslavery organization, although by no means a 
secession party. 

For years the Democratic party was in a precarious condi- 
tion. The Napton Resolutions were the rocks on which the 
party was shattered. Yet despite dangers at the hands of 
the jubilant Whigs, one wing of the Democrats, led by 
Frank Blair, risked party success to repeal them. The Clai- 
borne F. Jackson faction held solid for no retraction. The 
legislative session of 1852-53 was disrupted by the "irre- 
pressible " resolutions and by the three-cornered fight for the 
speakership between Bentonites, anti-Bentonites, and Whigs. 
The power of Congress over slavery in the Territories also 
embittered the partisans, " the animus of the discussion fore- 
shadowing to many the terrible catastrophe in which our 
national troubles culminated in 1861." 88 

87 Jas. S. Rollins, Speech in Joint Session of the Legislature, 
Feb. 2, 1855, in reply to Mr. Goode of St. Louis, pamphlet, p. 17. 
Also given in the Missouri Statesman, March 16, 1855. 

88 Switzler, pp. 275-277. Switzler was in the legislature off and on 
during this period. Some idea of this bitterness within the party 
can be gained from the Speech of L. V. Bogy of May 27, 1852. " Col. 
Benton appealed from those resolutions, and since that time the 
party has been divided. . . . This division spread throughout the 
length and breadth of the State, and a feeling of hostility— a deadly 
feud, sprung up between the two wings of the party" (p. 6). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY i6l 

The Democratic party longed for peace but found it not 
On December 22, 1851, the Democracy of Oregon Countv 
passed resolutions declaring that, whereas the divisions in 
the party had given the Whigs a senator and three congress- 
men, " unless these unhappy divisions are amicably adjusted 
... the Whigs will have both the executive and the legisla- 
ture of the State." 89 A Platte County gathering of Jan- 
uary 8, 1852, begged for a healing of the schism. 00 For 
weeks the press was full of accounts of similar pleas. But 
as much as they loved peace and harmony they loved prin- 
ciple more. The Democrats of Ray, 01 Osage, Cooper, 
Boone, Lafayette, Randolph, Monroe, 92 and other counties 
determined "to lay aside personal animosities and petty 
bickerings," but at the same time declared plainly that the 
instruction of senators and even of representatives was " a 
vital principle of republicanism." 

The Democratic state convention met at Jefferson City on 
April 5, and the party seemed again united. 93 Candidates 
were nominated, and a solid front was arrayed to meet the 
Whigs. Colonel Lewis V. Bogy was nominated to represent 
St. Louis in Congress. Even the St. Louis Democracy on 
April 24, under the leadership of Frank Blair, B. Gratz 
Brown, and Trusten Polk, swore to support the ticket. 9 * 
But the pipe of peace was rudely knocked from the lips of 
the sanguine politicians. Benton announced his independent 
candidacy for Congress. The whole conflict now reopened. 

89 Jefferson Inquirer, January 31, 1852. 

90 Ibid. In July, 1854, the anti-Benton candidate for the state 
Senate for Clay and Platte Counties begged his Bentonite rival to 
come to an agreement so that one could withdraw, lest the Whigs 
should win (Republican, July 25, 1854). 

91 Jefferson Inquirer, January 31, 1852. 

92 Ibid., February 14, 1852. 

93 This convention was by no means harmonious. One delegate, 
Dr. Lowry, thus expressed himself: " He said he was an anti-Benton 
man all over, and he expected to stand on the Jefferson platform, 
that he came to the Convention for the purpose of fraternizing, etc. 
(Weekly Missouri Sentinel, April 8, 1852). . 

94 Quoted by Bogy in his Speech of May 27 from the Daily Union 
of unknown date (pp. I4 _I 5)- 



1 62 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The Bentonites struck at the Napton Resolutions. 95 On 
February i, 1853, Frank Blair in a long speech moved the 
repeal of the resolutions, declaring they " did not express 
the sentiments of the people of this State." 98 A week later 
Claiborne F. Jackson reviewed Benton's whole career as an 
antislavery statesman. 97 On the 15th the rescinding resolu- 
tion was tabled by a vote of 72 to 49." The resolutions 
therefore remained, and along with them the ill-feeling. 

The Whigs loved not the Napton Resolutions, but they 
loved still less Democratic peace and harmony. " We 
always opposed making these questions [Napton Resolu- 
tions] a test of orthodoxy in the whig ranks," declared the 
Hannibal Journal. " Besides, if the whigs were to repeal 
these resolutions, the only bone of contention would be 
taken from the democratic ranks, and the cohesive power of 
public plunder would bring their disjointed ranks together, 
and then the Whigs might bid adieu to all hope of ever 
getting power in this State." 99 Other Whig papers agreed 
with the Journal, while some favored the repeal of the 
resolutions. 100 

With his election to Congress in 1852 Benton opened his 
agitation for the " Central National Highway to the Pacific." 
But even this popular issue could not save him. In 1854 he 
was defeated for reelection to Congress, and two years later 
failed in his efforts to become governor. Benton was a 

95 For an account of this action of Benton as told by his opponents 
see their pamphlet entitled A Statement of Facts and a Few Sug- 
gestions in Review of Political Action, pp. 8-9. 

96 Jefferson Inquirer, March 5, 1853. 

97 Ibid., February 12, 19, 1853. For a review of Benton's slavery 
record also see the printed letter of James S. Green to Messrs. 
Farish, Minor, Roberts, and Burks, December 10, 1849. 

98 Jefferson Inquirer, February 19; or in House Journal, 17th Ass., 
Extra Sess., p. 519. Nine members were absent and sick. On Feb- 
ruary 25, 1857, the fifth resolution was rescinded by a vote of 20 to 
7 in the Senate, eight members either being absent or not voting 
(Senate Journal, 19th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 340). 

99 Quoted from an unknown issue of the Journal by the Weekly 
Missouri Sentinel of August 28, 1852. 

100 The Sentinel cautioned the Whigs to "keep hands off," and 
criticized the Boonville Observer and the Missouri Statesman for 
favoring repeal (May 16, 1852). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 1 63 

fighter and never knew when he was beaten. His Jackson- 
ian Unionism was out of date. His revenge, however, was 
sweet, for David R. Atchison, his inveterate enemy, was as 
politically dead as himself, — so dead that, as Frank Blair 
said, " We have ceased to look at the spot where he went 
down." 101 Against Benton's protests the Missouri Com- 
promise was repealed, but his enemies merely digged their 
own pit, for Kansas was soon filled with abolitionists. So 
passes Thomas Hart Benton from the field of Missouri 
politics, of which for thirty years he had been the master. 
With him passed the Democrats who believed in the Union 
at any price. Following Benton came the most passionate 
period of Missouri history. 102 

The Whigs were the conservative force in Missouri 
politics, but the Kansas convulsion loosened many of them 
from their ancient moorings. On the slavery issue that 
party, like Benton, largely favored moderation. They 
prided themselves on their sound financial tenets. Agita- 
tion they naturally shunned. " Resolved, That we are 
equally opposed to the abolitionists of the North, and the 
Nullifiers of the South, as enemies of the Union, and will 
hold no political communion with either," said the Daviess 
County Whig convention declaration of 1852. 103 Fifty of 
the sixty Whig members of the legislature met on Christmas 
day, 1854, and, after condemning those who opposed the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill and those who sought to defeat the 
purpose of the Fugitive Slave Law, declared unanimously 
that they would support no candidates tarred with the free 
soil or the abolition stick. 104 

James S. Rollins was the intellectual leader of the Whigs 
for years. His statement of the orthodox Whig position on 
slavery is as follows : " I will reiterate what I consider to 
be the correct doctrine upon the subject of slavery," he said 
to a joint session of the legislature in 1855 ; " Congress . . . 

101 Speech delivered by Blair in St. Louis, date not given (St. 
Joseph Commercial Cycle, March 23, 1855)- 

102 See ch. vi of this study. «,„.,. » -i % 

103 Convention held at Gallatin, April 12, 1852 (Republican, April 24 ) . 

104 Richmond Weekly Mirror, January 5, 1855. 



164 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

has the power to legislate in the territories. . . . But if 
Congress has the power, as I believe it has, to legislate upon 
the slavery in the territories, justice, honor and expediency 
forbid its exercise. . . . Upon the question of slavery, I 
think, I may safely say, that the great Whig party of 
Missouri, is sound and conservative, ready to resist illegal 
Northern aggression and abolitionism on the one hand, and 
to suppress Southern fanaticism and nullification on the 
other. Above all things the people want repose upon this 
question. The safety of their property, the integrity of the 
Union, and the permanency of the Government itself, cries 
aloud against further agitation ! Let it cease ! " Mr. 
Rollins then read a resolution which had been previously 
drawn up for a Boone County meeting, and " which," he 
said, " I believe embodies on this question the Whig senti- 
ments of this State." This document is as follows : " Re- 
solved, That although the people of this State have always 
been willing to abide by the Missouri Compromise, yet 
believing the best and only method of settling the slavery 
question is to submit it to the judgment of the people; we 
approve of the establishment of the territories of Kansas 
and Nebraska with the power of the people who settle in 
those territories to regulate the subject of slavery within 
their limits according to their own pleasure." 105 

The Whigs as a party never admitted that slavery was 
anything but a personal matter. They would not allow their 
party to become an instrument for or against it. " There is 
a Whig ticket for the City of St. Louis," caustically re- 
marked an antislavery German editor, " upon which appear 
the proud names of slave-raising millionaires, and million- 
aire slave-raisers, and at the head of them is Luther M. 
Kennett." 106 

105 Speech in Reply to Goode, February 2, 1855, pp. 14, 16. 

106 Anzeiger des Westens of July 7, 1854, quoted by the Republican 
of July 8. The position of the Whigs on the slavery issue has been 
analyzed by Tupes (pp. 17-18). His thesis as a whole is somewhat 
too statistical, as the analysis of the vote on certain measures has 
been too strictly interpreted as measuring public as well as personal 
sentiment. He takes little account of the complexity of conflicting 
issues entering into each measure. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 1 65 

The American party of Missouri, composed largely of old- 
time Whigs, was also far from favorable to the antislavery 
program. At a Boone County meeting held on February 
4, 1856, resolutions were adopted condemning congressional 
interference with slavery in the Territories, advocating the 
enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and pleading for a 
cessation of slavery agitation. 107 

A great force in Missouri politics, especially during the 
fifties, was the German element of St. Louis. Detesting 
slavery and slaveholders on the one hand, and hating still 
more what they thought slavery stood for — disunion — they 
became active antislavery agitators. The old southern por- 
tion of the State was both shocked and outraged by these 
uncouth iconoclasts, many of whom had little respect for a 
slaveholding aristocracy, Calhoun politics, or the Puritan 
Sabbath. 108 Boernstein of the Anzeiger des Westens was 
exceptionally obnoxious to the proslavery people. " The 
tremendous majority of the citizens of our State are tired 
of the improper influence of the Slavocratic interest. They 
are not willing any longer to be tyrannized by a few thou- 
sand slaveholders," declared the Anzeiger in 1854. 109 The 

107 W. F. Switzler's Scrapbook, 1856-57, p. 31. Switzler himself 
submitted these resolutions. " The American party has therefore 
nowhere spoken its views on the subject of Emancipation," he said 
at a joint session of the legislature on January 25, 1857 (Missouri 
Statesman, April 10, 1857). 

108 On January 14, 1857, Akers of Missouri complained in Con- 
gress that the board of aldermen of St. Louis, " consisting in part " 
of Germans, had voted to repeal the Sabbath laws (Congressional 
Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., app., p. 151 )• But practical politics 
demanded that the slaveholder be not too squeamish when votes 
were needed from the contemptible "Dutch." In his message of 
December 29, 1858, Governor Stewart endeavored to wean the Teuton 
away from the new Republican party by honeyed words. Slavery, 
and in fact all labor systems, he said, were the result of climatic 
conditions and of experience. The governor declared that he had 
no apprehension from foreigners. He hinted that the North was 
endeavoring to make labor a slave to capital as had been done in 
England (Senate Journal, 20th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 33-3.6). 

10 » Anzeiger, July 21, 1854, quoted by the Republican of July 
24 1854 " We must oppose the extension of slavery over the Ter- 
ritories," continued the editor. " Slavery is a perfect pestilence to 
the State of Missouri. No one denies it, but . the establishment 
of slave States on our western borders will make the abolition of 



1 66 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Germans do not seem to have advocated an unqualified 
abolition program. " We are for the abolition of slavery in 
Missouri, but only constitutionally and in a manner to pay 
due respect to the just claims of the citizens of the State," 
explained the Anzeiger. 110 "On the subject of slavery, 
being an institution recognized by the laws of the country," 
stated the Volksblatt in 1856, " although we would favor 
a plan for gradual emancipation, we are against any forcible 
and unconstitutional interference for its abolition. And, 
therefore we are decidedly opposed to the Abolition 
party." 111 

The Germans even held slaves in some cases. In i860 
nineteen Germans of St. Louis paid taxes on forty out of 
the thirteen hundred and eighty-three slaves taxed in the city. 
Of these German slavemasters O. C. Schauenburg led with 
six negroes, C. W. Gauss was second with five, and George 
Heise and J. R. Lienberger were taxed on three each. 112 
When the South seceded, the Germans, with hardly an 
exception, supported the Union. Of the 10,730 Federal 

slavery in our own State still more difficult, if not entirely impossi- 
ble. We are for the abolition of slavery in Missouri, but only con- 
stitutionally ... we demand of the Northern States that they con- 
stitutionally fight the South for every foot of land that has not yet 
been conquered for slavery ! " 

110 Anzeiger, July 21, 1854, quoted by the Republican of July 24, 

1854. 

111 Volksblatt of unknown date quoted by the Weekly Pilot of 
April 26, 1856. 

112 These Germans and the number of slaves on which they paid 
taxes in i860 were as follows: Richard K. Bechtel, 1 slave (MS. 
Tax Book, St. Louis City, i860, Book A to B, p. 81) ; Edward Benk- 
endorp, 1 slave (ibid., p. 87) ; C. B. Fallenstein, 1 slave (ibid., 
Bk. C to F, p. 207) ; George Heise, 4 slaves (ibid., Bk. G to K, p. 
122) ; C. W. Gauss, 5 slaves (ibid., p. 18) ; Jacob Iseler, 2 slaves 
(ibid., p. 149) ; Charles Hoeser, 2 slaves (ibid., p. 248) ; John Knip- 
perberg, 1 slave (ibid., p. 238) ; J. R. Lienberger, 4 slaves (ibid., 
Bk. L to O, p. 41) ; Louis I. Mantz, 1 slave (ibid., p. 42) ; Samuel 
Myerson, 2 slaves (ibid., p. 197) ; Robert Ober, 2 slaves (ibid., p. 
218) ; George Schaffner, 2 slaves (ibid., Bk. P to S, p. 139) J O. C. 
Schauenburg, 6 slaves (ibid., p. 141); N. J. Strautman, 2 slaves 
(ibid., p. 253) ; R. C. Weinck, 1 slave (ibid., Bk. T to Z, p. 84) ; 
Thomas H. Weit, 1 slave (ibid., p. 122) ; Z. F. Wetzel, 1 slave 
(ibid., p. 125), and A. Weisman, 1 slave (ibid., p. 137)- Naturally 
it is difficult to distinguish between German immigrants and Penn- 
sylvania German settlers. But if the latter held slaves it would also 
be a matter of interest. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 1 67 

volunteers raised in St. Louis in 1861 four fifths, according 
to the state adjutant general's report of that year, were 
Germans. 113 One German writer boasts that his country- 
men who did not support the Union could be counted on 
his fingers. 114 

Throughout the slavery period the subject of emancipa- 
tion was unceasingly preached by an ever active minority, 
while, on the other hand, a mighty effort was made to keep 
the agitation out of politics. " Our own representative, the 
Hon. Willard P. Hall, is a slave holder both in theory & 
practice," wrote Adam Klippel of St. Joseph to Salmon P. 
Chase in 1849, "and although his constituents, by a large 
majority, are non-slaveholding, yet he never dares to speak 
a word in favor of freedom." 115 "We do not apprehend 
much trouble from the slavery question," said a St. Louis 
editor the same year, " for . . . the great majority of our 
citizens look upon the subject as we do: that it is more 
dangerous for the politicians than for the people at large." 119 
On the other hand, the St. Louis newspaper, the Organ, in 
this same year claimed that there was a widespread desire 
for emancipation in the State and that " not a single paper 
in Missouri, out of St. Louis, condemns or disapproves the 
agitation of the question." 117 From the evidence touched 
upon in foregoing pages it is clear that this editor did not 
know the rural press of the State. The conservative old 
paper, the Republican, ever counseled caution and deprecated 
agitation. 

113 Adjutant General's Report, 1861, p. 6. 

114 W. Kaufman, Die Deutschen im amerikanischen Burgerkriege, 
p. 194. Another German says that of the 85,400 Federal volunteers 
raised in Missouri the Germans furnished 30,899 (A. B. Faust, The 
German Element in the United States, vol. i, p. 523)- E. D. Kargau 
states that the first four Union regiments of the State were com- 
posed entirely of Germans ("Missouri's German Immigration," in 
Missouri Historical Society Collections, vol. ii, no. i,p. 33)- On this 
point see also J. F. Hume, The Abolitionists, p. 182, and W. G. 
Bek, The German Settlement Society of Philadelphia, and Its Col- 
ony, Hermann, Missouri, pp. 124-126. 

115 Chase Correspondence, p. 473. 

116 Daily Union, February 17, 1849. 

117 Quoted from an issue of the Organ of unknown date by Niles' 
Register, vol. lxxvi, p. 259. 



1 68 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

In spite of all caution, the activity of the great anti- 
slavery leaders, Frank Blair, B. Gratz Brown, Boernstein, 
and George R. Smith, continually brought the disagreeable 
spectre before the people. Evidently Gratz Brown's elec- 
torate in St. Louis favored his views. " I sent you a few 
days since a copy of my remarks upon the Emancipation 
resolutions," he wrote George R. Smith in 1857. " It was 
a startling speech to the House in some respects, and took 
the opposition members by surprise. In St. Louis I hear 
it raised quite a furor. ... It was framed principally as you 
will see from reading it to suit my own meridian, but I am 
sanguine enough to hope that it will not be without good 
effect even in other counties of Missouri." 118 

The extent of emancipation sentiment during the last 
years of the slavery regime in Missouri cannot be measured 
either in its volume or in its intensity. The opinion is often 
advanced that the State was ready for emancipation at any 
time between 1804 and i860, but that the attitude of the 
antislavery faction caused justifiable resentment on the part 
of the slaveholders. "Let it be understood," said a pro- 
slavery contemporary many years later, "that Missourians 
did not so much oppose the emancipation of their slaves as 
they did the means used to accomplish it. For thousands of 
slave holders believed that the abolition of slavery would be 
a blessing both to the slave and to the master, if it could be 
done in a lawful and peaceable way. . . . For ten years 
before the war it was a foregone conclusion with intelligent 
classes that slavery would be abolished in Missouri, and a 
system of free labor adopted that would be more successful 
in developing the resources of the State." 119 It is doubtful 
if this writer would have made the above statement in 
slavery days. Such musings were common after slavery 
was dead and the success of free labor realized in Missouri. 
The mass of slave-owners were well satisfied with their 
property, and bitterly resented any hint that emancipation 

118 MS. Brown to Smith, dated Jefferson City, March 3, 1857, 
Smith Papers. 

119 Leftwich, vol. i, pp. 96-97. 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY 169 

was either advisable or possible, especially if the negroes 
were to remain in the State after being liberated. 

The proslavery leaders at the time denied that slavery 
was a burden either economically or socially. The Address 
of the Lexington Pro-Slavery Convention to the People of 
the United States, drawn up by Sterling Price, Judge W. B. 
Napton, and others, mentioned the fact that the idea was 
prevalent " that Missouri contained but a small slave popula- 
tion, and that the permanence of this institution here was 
threatened by the existence of at least a respectable minority 
of her citizens ... we think it proper to state, that the idea 
above alluded to is unfounded ; and that no respectable party 
can be found in this State, outside of St. Louis, prepared to 
embark in any such schemes. In that city ... it will not 
seem surprising that its wild and heterogeneous population 
should furnish a foothold for the wildest and most visionary 
projects." 120 

One of the great slavery advocates of the State in the 
late fifties was Senator Green. In the United States Senate 
on May 18, 1858, he said : " It has been my privilege to live 
there [in Missouri] nearly twenty years, to mix freely with 
the people of all classes. ... I know it [sentiment in Mis- 
souri] to be exactly the reverse of what he [Senator King] 
represents it. . . . The public common sentiment of the 
people of the State is for peace, for law, . . . and to abide by 
our institutions as they are, ... I undertake to say that 
the sentiment to which the Senator alludes in the State of 
Missouri is exceptionally small." 121 "Emancipation! a new 
word in our political discussions ; a new theme in this State 
for the contemplation of the people," exclaimed W. F. 
Switzler in a joint session of the legislature in 1857. 122 The 
following year Switzler repeated his statement, and claimed 
that not fifteen thousand voters could be found in the State 
who favored emancipation. 123 

120 Proceedings of the Convention, p. 4. 

121 Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., part 3 p. 2207. 

122 Speech of January 25 (Missouri Statesman, April 10, 1857). 

123 Ibid., July 30, 1858. 



I70 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Although the active emancipation party in Missouri in the 
late fifties was comparatively small, it was menacing. The 
General Assembly felt called upon to denounce the move- 
ment. On February 10, 1857, Carr introduced the following 
resolution in the Senate: "Be it therefore Resolved, That 
the emancipation of all the slaves held as property in this 
State, would not only be unpracticable, but any movement 
having such an end in view, would be inexpedient, impolitic, 
unwise, and unjust, and should, in the opinion of the General 
Assembly be discountenanced by the people of the State." 
This declaration passed the Senate by a vote of 25 to 4, 
seven members being absent or not voting. 124 It passed the 
House by a majority of 107 to 12, thirteen members being 
absent or not voting. 125 

A general spirit of intolerance toward agitators was mani- 
fested during the last decade of the slavery regime in 
Missouri. The State University was in a condition of unrest 
for years. President James Shannon, who had served as a 
minister of the Christian Church and as president of a 
denominational college in Kentucky, was accused of preach- 
ing sectarianism and proslavery politics in the classroom. 
On December 22, 1852, a committee was appointed by the 
Senate, and on January 25, 1853, one was named by the 
House, to examine the university. 126 A report was made on 
February 24, signed by five of the faculty and many students, 
declaring that the charges were false. 127 

Early in 1856 a student of Bethany College named Barns 
lectured on " Liberty." A reporter stated that Barns was 
offensive to the proslavery people, and fled after receiving 
threatening letters. The reporter, however, declared that 

124 Senate Journal, 19th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 213-214. 

125 House Journal, 19th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 303. The resolutions 
passed the House February 13. 

126 Senate Journal, 17th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 107; House Journal, 
17th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 381. 

127 House Journal, 17th Ass., 1st Sess., app., pp. 349-365- There 
was also a minority report. One student declared that President 
Shannon disagreed with a text-book which condemned slavery and 
referred the students to his own Philosophy of Slavery. This stu- 
dent, however, admitted that the president was fair-minded and 
argued as he did purely for the sake of argument (ibid., p. 364). 



SENATOR BENTON AND SLAVERY \-j \ 

Barns was not badly used, but craved martyrdom. 128 One 
Ross, a temperance lecturer, in 1855 created "quite a row" 
in Howard, Boone, and Cooper Counties by his antislavery 
utterances, but there was no proof that he was an abolitionist. 
His relatives were told to watch him lest he get into 
trouble. 129 In April, 1855, at Chillicothe, a Christian min- 
ister, the Reverend David White, was ordered to leave the 
county as his sermons were " strongly tinctured with Aboli- 
tion sentiments." A vigilance committee was appointed to 
carry out the decrees of the protesting citizens. 130 

Even some of the most ardent emancipationists of the 
Civil War period, the " Charcoalers " of 1863, were far from 
being abolitionists at this time. General George R. Smith, 
who with Charles D. Drake led the unconditional emancipa- 
tionists later, resented bitterly being styled an abolitionist 
in 1856. "I have never either published or charged you 
privately with being an abolitionist," indignantly wrote Silas 
H. Woodson to Smith on July 1, 1856; " I am mortified and 
astonished that you should become so evidently disaffected 
toward me on the strength of rumor." 131 

One fact which should always be kept in mind is that 
secession and slavery bore no close relation to one another 
in Missouri. Out of a total poll of 166,518 in i860, Breckin- 
ridge received but 31,317 votes, while Lincoln received but 
I7,028. 132 A year later, however, the Camp Jackson affair 
considerably changed sentiment in favor of the South. It 
is very unsafe to gauge sentiment by count of votes, espe- 
cially at a presidential election, yet to realize the conservative 
nature of the Missourians when it came to a clear division 
one has but to glance at the combined vote of the radicals, 
Breckinridge and Lincoln, in comparison with the 117,173 
votes received by Douglas and Bell, or to turn back to 1857 

128 St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, February 22, 1856. 

129 Ibid., November 2. 1855. In July, 1851, Mr. Wyman of St. 
Louis was widely praised for refusing to rent his hall to an abolition 
lecturer (Daily Intelligencer [St. Louis], July 7, 1851). 

«o Missouri Statesman, April 27, 1855- The public meeting re- 
ferred to was held on April 8. 

131 MS. dated Independence, Smith Papers. 

132 Switzler, p. 297. 



172 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

when Stewart defeated Rollins by only 334 votes for gover- 
nor in a State which was considered strongly Democratic. 183 
The slaveholding Missourian of the fifties valued his prop- 
erty, and he longed for peace. If national issues — the 
tariff, the currency, internal improvements — were tempo- 
rarily submerged, the slaveholder turned to a candidate who 
would secure the integrity of existing conditions. Slavery 
may have been the ultimate but it certainly was not the 
immediate cause of the Civil War as far as Missouri was 
concerned. 

133 Switzler, p. 271. It is not within the scope of this study to deal 
with party politics, as the slavery issue was a small factor in influ- 
encing struggles between Whig and Democrat. James S. Rollins 
had been a staunch Whig. His son, Mr. Curtis B. Rollins, gave the 
present writer a description of his father. He worshipped the doc- 
trines of the Whig party. His friends claim, and some Democrats 
have admitted, that Rollins was really elected in 1857, although he 
was defeated by nearly fifteen thousand votes in 1848 (ibid., p. 255). 
Despite the wild excitement of the Kansas troubles, Rollins's efforts 
to calm the storm may have driven many proslavery voters to him 
for security. " Rollins is sweeping everything before him in this 
part of the State," gleefully wrote Silas Woodson to George R. 
Smith from Independence in July, 1857. " His position, and past 
personal history upon the slavery issue, though highly conservative 
was altogether acceptable to the most of the ultra pro-slavery men 
of our party [Whig], and I believe he will not lose five old time 
Whigs in our County" (MS. dated July 26, Smith Papers). Mr. 
George Carson of Fayette says that Rollins was the most polished 
orator he ever heard. He was not only eloquent but was brilliant. 
Mr. Carson remembers hearing Benton when he delivered his famous 
speech at Central College, Fayette, in 1849. He declared that Benton 
spoke very slowly and deliberately. He was not eloquent, but was a 
convincing speaker. 



CHAPTER VI 

Missouri and Kansas 

To understand the great movements which excited Mis- 
souri and agitated the entire country on more than one 
occasion— the Compromise of 1820, the Kansas-Nebraska 
Act and the resulting struggle in Kansas, and the Dred Scott 
Case— one must get a picture of the State which gave them 
birth. The exposed position of Missouri— "a slave-holding 
peninsula jutting up into a sea of free-soil" — was primarily 
the cause of her continued unrest. This peninsula, unnatu- 
rally formed for political reasons to reconcile irreconcilable 
sections, was exposed still more by the two great rivers. 
The Missouri, coming out of free territory, flowed past free 
Kansas for a hundred miles and then swerved off through 
the heart of Missouri's great slave counties. The Mississippi 
for hundreds of miles alone separated Missouri from an 
ever-watchful abolitionist minority in Illinois. The great 
interstate shipping along the Mississippi offered a chance of 
freedom to any plucky black who might be hired as a boat 
hand or stowed away by a sympathetic or a venal crew till a 
free port was reached. The Underground Railroad was 
busy on three borders of the State. The spectre of a " horde 
of negro-stealing Abolitionists " permanently settled in Kan- 
sas with the avowed purpose of strangling the " peculiar in- 
stitution " was both irritating and economically appalling to 
the hardheaded, self-made frontiersman, who resented any 
interference with his God-given institution. Slave-stealing 
was abhorrent to his idea of fair play and sacrilegious in the 
light of his interpretation of the Constitution. Despite pres- 
ent-day claims to the contrary, the newspapers, the journals 
of the General Assembly, and contemporary correspondence 
prove that Missouri was from its very inception in a state 

173 



174 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

of unrest and feverish apprehension which subsequent events 
seem to have justified. 

Throughout the slavery period most of the Missouri law 
dealing with the absconding black was concerned with the 
recovery of the fugitive. The Code of 1804 fined any person 
five dollars and costs for harboring a runaway negro. 1 In 
1817 a form of procedure for seizing a fugitive was passed. 
He was to be taken first before a justice of the peace. The 
sheriff was then to serve notice on the owner. If the latter 
refused to pay the summons fee, the justice might "issue 
execution as in ordinary cases." For the benefit of non- 
resident owners the names of escaped slaves were to be pub- 
lished for ninety days in a territorial paper. The master was 
to pay costs before receiving his property. If the slave was 
not claimed within ninety days, he was to be sold to the 
highest bidder for " ready money." After deducting the jail 
fees and five dollars for apprehending the negro, the residue 
was to be deposited in the treasury to satisfy the future 
claims of the master. 2 The punishment of the slave for 
absconding seems to have been left entirely to the owner. 

A law of 1823 gave any person the right to apprehend a 
slave and place him in the " common gaol " of the county, 3 
unless the owner or employer of the fugitive resided in the 
county, in which case the negro could be directly delivered 
to the claimant. Any slave found twenty miles from home 
without a pass was to be deemed a fugitive. On suspicion 
of an escaped slave lurking about the county a justice was to 
direct the sheriff or the constable to lodge him in prison. 
The negro, after being advertised for twelve months, was to 
be sold, and if the claimant did not appear within five years 

1 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 9. 

2 Ibid., ch. 187, sees. 1, 2. 

3 On January 23, 1865, a committee was appointed by the House 
to investigate the rumor that the state penitentiary was being used 
for the safekeeping of slaves (House Journal, 22d Ass., 1st Sess., 
p. 143). On February 28, 1848, Mrs. Francis A. Sublette paid jail 
fees to the amount of $6.75 for the keeping of her negro named 
London for twenty-four days, at the rate of twenty-five cents per 
day, and a fee of seventy-five cents for the turnkey (MS. Sublette 
Papers). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 175 

the money was to go to the State University. The master 
must prove his property by witnesses, and, in addition to any 
reward which may have been offered, must pay the appre- 
hending fee of ten cents a mile for the distance traversed in 
returning the slave. If after seizing a negro the justice was 
satisfied that he was not a fugitive, he could be discharged 
by habeas corpus proceedings. In cases where a negro died 
in jail or was discharged from custody the State was to pay 
these fees. 4 The provisions of the Revised Code of 1835 
were very similar to the above, but were more precise as to 
the method of claiming the slave. 5 This law, with some 
modifications, remained as the working statute till slavery 
disappeared in the State. It was reenacted in 1845, again 
ten years later, and finally again in 1861, at a time when the 
escapes of slaves were increasingly numerous. 6 

4 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 747, sees. 1-10. 

5 Revised Laws, 183s, p. 589, art. iv, sec. 12. The claimant was to 
prove that he had lost a slave and that the negro in question was the 
same, and he had to give bond to indemnify the sheriff for his 
services, and give a certificate of proof and security under seal of 
court. Examples of the sheriffs' notices of the sale of fugitives are 
numerous in the newspapers of the period. The following is an 
illustration : " NOTICE OF A RUNAWAY SLAVE. There was 
committed to the common jail of St. Louis County ... as a run- 
away slave, a negro who says . . . that he belongs to Milton Cooper 
of Ashland in the State of Arkansas. Said negro is about thirty 
one years of age. . . . The owner of the above slave is hereby re- 
quired to make application for him . . . and pay all charges incurred 
. . . otherwise I will, on Tuesday, the 25th day of January next . . . 
at the north door of the Court House . . . sell the said negro . . . 
to the highest bidder for cash, pursuant to the statute in such cases 
made and provided. John M. Wiener, Sheriff of St. Louis Co." 
(Jefferson Inquirer, November 27, 1852). 

6 Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 167, art. iii; Revised Statutes, 185s, 
ch. 150, art. iii; Session Laws, i860, p. 90. A law of 1835 gave the 
method by which an out-of-state slaveholder could recover his prop- 
erty. Such a claimant was to secure a warrant from some "justice 
or justice of the peace" requiring the sheriff to present the fugitive 
to some court or magistrate. " The proof to entitle any person to 
such warrants shall be by affidavit, setting forth, particularly and 
minutely, the ground of such claim." After the court had heard the 
testimony he could return the negro to jail if further testimony was 
thought necessary. If the negro in question was not a fugitive, the 
one causing his arrest was to pay him $100 and pay all costs (Revised 
Laws, 1835, p. 286). A law of 1845 granted the sheriff a fee of $100 
for taking a fugitive without the State if he was over twenty years 
of age, if under twenty half that amount, in addition to the reward. 



I76 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

Toward slave-stealing the law was very severe, whether 
the deed was perpetrated through sentiment or for profit. 
In the Code of 1804 either the selling of free negroes into 
slavery or the stealing of slaves was punished by death with- 
out benefit of clergy. 7 In 1843 & was declared grand larceny 
to " decoy or carry any slave " from the State, whether done 
as a theft or to free the negro. The offender was to suffer 
five years' imprisonment, whether the attempt succeeded or 
failed. 8 This statute was reenacted in 1845 and again in 
1861. 9 That this provision was enforced is learned from the 
inspectors of the penitentiary, who in 1854 reported that 
there were seven inmates in that institution for the " attempt 
to decoy slaves." 10 In 1858 there were six, 11 and in i860 ten 
such prisoners. 12 Seemingly none of these efforts had suc- 
ceeded, as all are reported as being "attempts," nor is it 
possible to tell whether the convicts were abolitionists or 

The fee was to be $25 and the reward if the slave was taken within 
the State. After a slave had been advertised for three months he 
was to be sold and the residue kept for the claimant, after the 
sheriff's claims had been settled (Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 168, 
sees. 1-6, reenacted in Session Laws, i860, p. 00). For apprehending 
a slave within his own county the sheriff was to receive $5, or $10 
if in an adjoining county over twenty miles from the home of the 
fugitive (Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 169, sec. 1). The question of 
the legal recipient of the reward must have been a subject of some 
dispute. In Daugherty v. Tracy the state supreme court held that 
"a person who actually apprehends the slave, makes the affidavit 
and has the slave committed to jail, is to be deemed the taker of the 
slave." If a private person called in an officer to take up a slave, 
the latter was entitled to the reward if he committed the slave (11 
Mo., 62). 

7 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 21, 22. A law of 1825 reduced 
the punishment for enslaving a free person or for decoying such 
out of the State to a maximum of thirty lashes and imprisonment 
for ten years, unless the kidnapped negro was meanwhile returned, 
in which case the punishment was to be a fine of one thousand 
dollars and costs (Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 283, sec. 13). 

8 Session Laws, 1842, p. 133, sees. 1, 2, 3. 

9 Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 168, sec. 7. The same punishment 
was given a white or a free negro for forging a pass so that a slave 
could escape (ibid., sees. 7, 9). 

10 Senate Journal, 17th Ass., 1st Sess., app., p. 223. 

11 Senate Journal, 20th Ass., 1st Sess., app., p. 138. 

12 House Journal, 21st Ass., 1st Sess., app., p. 314- In 1846 there 
was one such prisoner (House Journal, 14th Ass., 1st Sess., app., p. 
54). In 1856 there were two such inmates (Senate Journal, 18th 
Ass., 1st Sess., p. 284). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 177 

mere thieves. Two very famous cases of slave abduction 
were that of Burr, Work, and Thompson in Marion County 
in 1841, 13 and that of "old" John Doy of Kansas at St. 
Joseph and Platte City in the late fifties. 14 

Missouri's great rivers had early caused both legislation 
and litigation. The Code of 1804 forbade the master of a 
vessel to carry a slave from the "district" of Louisiana 
without permission. 15 The Codes of 1825, 1835, 1845, and 
1855, which were based on a law of 1822, fined a ferryman 
the full value of the slave and costs for taking him across the 
Mississippi without a special permit, and a shipmaster for 
the same offense was fined one hundred and fifty dollars, to 
be recovered by the owner by action for debt. He might be 
further subject to common-law action. 18 A statute of 1841 
made any "master, commander or owner of any boat or 
other vessel" liable for the value of the slave "without 
prejudice to the right of such owner to his action at common 
law," for carrying any slave from one point to another 
within the State without permission. 17 

This statute was the result of a feeling that abolitionists 
and free blacks were using the shipping as a means of sys- 
tematically running off Missouri slaves. A contemporary 
editorial illustrates the dangers and fears of the time and 

_ 13 Thompson, passim. In August, 1841, these three Illinois aboli- 
tionists came over from Quincy to take certain slaves to Canada. 
The slaves betrayed them, and they were sent to the penitentiary 
after an exciting trial. The term was to be twelve years, but was 
later reduced. An account of this episode can also be found in the 
Bulletin (St. Louis), September 13, 1841. See also pp. 121-122, above. 

14 Doy, passim. Doy was caught in Kansas by a crowd of Mis- 
sourians in an attempt to take to Canada some negroes of Lawrence, 
who feared kidnapping. The Missourians claimed that these were 
fugitives and not free blacks. Doy was imprisoned for several 
months, but was finally taken from the St. Joseph jail by a band of 
antislavery Kansans. His account, like Thompson's, is bitter, but 
gives a good idea of the struggles of the period. 

15 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 35, 36. 

16 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 747 5 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581, 
art. i, sec. 36; renewed in Revised Statutes, 1845. ch. 167, art. i, sec. 
28; also in Revised Statutes, 1855, ch. 150, art. i, sees. 28, 29. 

17 Session Laws, 1840, p. 146. A law of 1823 had fined a ferryman 
the value of the slave, in addition to the damages and costs, for car- 
rying him over the Mississippi (Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii. p. 747 
sec. 2). 



I78 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

the price which St. Louis paid for her great and boasted 
river commerce. " Recent events demonstrate the fact that 
the employment of free negroes, mulattoes, and free slaves 
who hire their own time, on board of steamboats on the 
western waters, is a cause of serious loss and danger to the 
slave states and slave owners. . . . These have the oppor- 
tunity of constant communication with slaves of Missouri, 
Kentucky and the other southern States, and have also very 
frequent communication with the free negroes and abolition- 
ists of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This com- 
munication renders the slaves restless and induces them to 
run away, and furnishes them a means of escape. . . . The 
negro hands on board the steamboats can frequently conceal 
runaway negroes . . . without the consent of the captain . . . 
their association with the slaves is not a cause of suspicion 
and discovery, as a similar association between white emis- 
saries and slaves would certainly be." 18 

The coming of the railroad furnished a new means of 
escape for slaves. Captain J. A. Wilson of Lexington claims 
that the people of western Missouri were apprehensive lest 
the Pacific Railroad, for which Benton and his constituents 
had fought for years, should run their slaves to Kansas. 
The old boat law with some changes was applied to railways 
in 1855. The offenders were liable for double the value of 
the escaped slave and for common-law action as well. 19 A 
number of negroes evidently escaped by rail. In 1857 the 
people of Franklin County complained of their slaves escap- 
ing by this means. 20 The trouble must have continued, for 
on March 1, i860, a resolution was introduced into the 
House of Representatives that the General Assembly should 
" vote for no bill knowingly granting state aid to railroads 
whose Board of Directors is composed of a majority of 
Black Republicans." The resolution was tabled by a vote 
of 82 to 17, and may simply have been a general thrust at 

18 Daily Evening Gazette, August 18, 1841. 

19 Session Laws, 1854, p. 169. Repealed February 6, 1864 (Session 
Laws, 1863, p. 41). 

20 House Journal, 18th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 233 (February 7). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 1 79 

antislavery activity. 21 Apparently fewer slaves used the 
railroads as a means of escape than the river shipping, as the 
newspapers of the day do not contain many notices of such 
absconding, while the press and court records note many 
escapes by boat. 

Assemblies of slaves, both public and private, were more 
or less carefully regulated. The Code of 1804 brought pres- 
sure to bear on both the slave and the master. If the slave 
left his master's "tenements" without leave, he could be 
punished with stripes at the discretion of a justice of the 
peace. If he entered another's plantation, that planter could 
give him ten stripes. If a free colored person or a slave 
carried a gun, powder, shot, or a club, the justice could pun- 
ish him with a maximum of thirty stripes, but if living on 
the frontier the latter could give him permission to carry 
such weapons. All " riots, routs, unlawful assemblies and 
seditious speeches " were to be punished at the discretion of 
the justice. 22 For allowing more than five slaves to gather on 
his plantation at one time a fine of one dollar per slave was 
to be levied against the offending planter, and for permitting 
a slave, without the owner's permission, to remain on his 
plantation for more than four hours he was to be fined three 
dollars. 23 This did not prevent slaves from assembling at a 
public mill "with leave" except at night or on Sunday. 
They could also go to church by written consent. 24 Passes, 

21 House Journal, 20th Ass., Called Sess., p. 31. Absent and not 
voting, 32. 

22 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sec. 7. This provision is found 
word for word in a Virginia statute of 1785 (Hening, vol. xii, p. 
182, sec. 4). 

23 An ordinance of St. Louis of February 5, 1811, punished a slave 
with ten lashes for attending such an assembly, and the master 
was to be fined five dollars if the slave was not punished. A free 
negro or white person was to receive twenty lashes and a fine of 
ten dollars for attending without the owner's permission (Ordinance 
of February 5, 181 1, MS. Record Book of the Trustees of St. Louis, 
pp. 23-25. sees. 4, 5, 6). 

24 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 3. 4, 5, 7, 8. These sections 
are very similar to an old Virginia statute of 1723 which provided 
a penalty of five shillings per slave if a master allowed more than 
five slaves, other than his own, to meet on his property. Slaves 
could meet at church or a public mill. If living on the frontier 
slaves could carry weapons, if so licensed by a justice of the peace 
(Hening, vol. iv, p. 126, sees. 8, 9, 14). 



jgO SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

however, were somewhat liberally granted, and were not 
always necessary. 25 The revisions of 1835, 1845, and 1855 
accepted these provisions of 1804 in most cases verbatim, 
and in addition fined any white person ten dollars and any 
free negro ten dollars and ten lashes for joining in any slave 
meeting. The sheriffs, constables, justices, and other officials 
were to suppress these assemblies and to bring offenders to 
justice under penalty for neglect of duty. 26 

Manifestly intended to prevent loafing and intemperance 
as well as the usual dangers connected with slave assem- 
blages, a law was passed in 1833 fining a store- or tavern- 
keeper from five to fifty dollars for allowing slaves or free 
negroes to assemble at any time on his premises, especially 
on Sundays, unless sent on business by their owners. 27 In 
1847 every religious assembly of negroes or mulattoes was 
required, if the preacher was a negro, to have some official 
present " in order to prevent all seditious speeches and dis- 
orderly and unlawful conduct of every kind." 28 In Septem- 
ber, 1854, two slaves were convicted in Platte County, fined 
one dollar each and costs, and ordered committed till this 
was paid, for " preaching the gospel to their fellows, with no 
officer present, on Atchison Hill." 29 It is probable that aboli- 
tion emissaries and a temptation to abscond were feared 
more than conspiracies to revolt. Unless watched, the 

25 General George R. Smith of Sedalia wrote: "It is melancholy 
to remember . . . that Uncle Toby, Uncle Jack, and other gray- 
haired men and women . . . were compelled to have written per- 
missions to leave home and would come even to me, a little child, 
when the older members of the family were busy, to give them a 
written pass to go to town" (Harding, p. 49). Anice Washington 
of St. Louis, who was a slave in Madison and St. Francis Counties, 
said that a pass was demanded by her owners only when the negroes 
went to a dance. They could go to the church, which was two 
miles off, on Sundays without one. 

26 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581, art. i, sees. 26-33- Section 32 is not 
in the Revision of 1845 (vol. ii, ch. 167, art. i), otherwise it is iden- 
tical. The revision of 1855 (vol. ii, ch. no, art. i) is the same as 
that of 1845. 

27 Session Laws, 1832, ch. 41, sees. 1, 2. 

28 Session Laws, 1846, p. 103, sees. 2, 3. 

29 Paxton, p. 187. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS l8l 

preacher, particularly if a negro, might give his audience 
views of liberty and worldly ambition. 30 

The punishment of the slave for leaving his owner's plan- 
tation and for actually running away seems to have been left 
largely with the master. The slave was to be punished 
" with stripes " for leaving his master's " tenements " with- 
out a pass, and the one on whose property he was found was 
to give him ten lashes. 31 The Revision of 1835 increased 
this summary punishment to twenty lashes, and any person 
who found a slave off his master's property could take such 
slave before a justice, who was to punish him at his discre- 
tion. Any slave who concealed a fugitive was to be punished 
with not more than thirty-nine stripes by a justice of the 
peace. 32 The law of 1825 establishing patrols ordered these 
officers to punish any slave found off his master's plantation 
by ten lashes, or by not more than thirty-nine after convic- 
tion by a justice. 33 The revised statutes of ten years later 
reduced this punishment by the justice to twenty stripes, 
and this number remained till slavery was abolished. 34 

The city of St. Louis had its special slave problems be- 
cause of its numerous free negroes and dissolute whites, 
natural to a great port with a large alien population. Its 
enormous shipping interests likewise affected slave condi- 
tions. An ordinance of 1835 punished a slave with from 
five to fifteen lashes for being at a religious or other meeting 
without permission later than nine at night from October 
to March, or ten o'clock the other six months of the year. 
If the master paid two dollars and the costs, the punishment 
could be remitted. 35 This provision was modified somewhat 
by one passed later in the same year which prohibited a slave 

30 See above, p. 85, note II, for an example of a slave sermon. 

31 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 2, 3. This same punishment 
was accorded by a Virginia statute of 1723 (Hening, vol. iv, p. 126, 
sec. 13). 

32 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581. art. i, sees. 23, 24, 25. 

33 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 614. 

34 Revised Laws, 1835, ch. 129, sec. 5. 

35 Ordinance of May II, 1835, sec. 3 (Ordinances oi St Louis, 
1836, p. 125). This ordinance is also printed in the Missouri Argus 
of June 5, 1835. 



1 82 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

from being in the streets of the city from ten p. m. to four 
a. m. during the summer months, or from nine p. m. to five 
a. m. in winter, " under any pretense whatever unless such 
slave have a written pass ... of that day's date." The 
master of a slave was to be fined five dollars for the first, 
ten dollars for the second, and twenty dollars for subsequent 
offenses, and the slave could be imprisoned till this fine was 
paid. 36 This ordinance was reenacted March 16, 1843, w ^ tn 
very little alteration, and remained without change till the 
Civil War. 37 

An ordinance of 1850 gave the mayor power to issue gen- 
eral passes to free negroes of good character and to grant 
them permission to hold religious or social assemblages after 
eleven p. m. The city guard was to watch all assemblies 
when so commanded by the mayor. Whites were fined from 
twenty to fifty dollars for being present at unlawful meet- 
ings. Offending slaves were to be sent to the workhouse on 
default of the payment of the fine by their owners. Any 
person fraudulently issuing a pass was to be fined from 
twenty to one hundred dollars. 38 The enforcement of these 
ordinances was not always satisfactory. "A large meeting" 
of St. Louis citizens on October 22, 1846, resolved among 
other things " That the City Council be requested to pass an 
ordinance, prohibiting all assemblages and passing of negroes 
after dark." 39 

In 1825 the General Assembly passed an act establishing 
patrols. The patrol was to visit the negro quarters and 
assemblages with power to arrest any suspicious blacks who 
might be wandering about without passes and to inflict not 
more than ten lashes. If the patrol took any such negroes 
before a justice of the peace, they could be punished with a 

36 Ordinance of December 22, 1835 (Ordinances of St. Louis, 1836, 
p. 89, sees. I, 2). 

37 Ordinances of 1843, p. 522; Ordinances of 1846, p. 229; Ordi- 
nances of 1850, pp. 297-299; Revised Ordinances, 1856, pp. 564-566; 
Ordinances of 1861, pp. 522-524. 

38 Ordinance of March 29, 1850 (Revised Ordinances, 1853, no. 
2377, sees. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). 

39 Scrapbook of James S. Thomas, vol. i, p. 26. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 



I8 3 



maximum of thirty-nine stripes/" The county patrols were 
established in 1837. The act gave the county court power 
to appoint township patrols to serve for one year. The 
stripes to be given by a justice were reduced to a maximum 
of twenty. This law was reenacted in 1845, and again in 
1855. 41 Cities had their own systems of slave regulation. 
As early as 181 1 a patrol was established in St. Louis to 
arrest stray negroes and prevent fires in slave cabins after 
dark. 42 Jefferson City in 1836 passed an ordinance which 
was very similar to the county patrol act. 43 The same year 
a supplementary ordinance was published which compelled 
all citizens, under a penalty, to aid the patrol if called upon. 44 
The courts seem to have been rigid in interpreting the laws 
covering slave escapes. Steamboats as well as ferryboats 
and other small craft were held to be under the statute. 45 It 
was not necessary to prove that the captain of the boat knew 
that the negro he carried was a slave. 46 The owner of the 
steamboat was liable for the value of the negro if the latter 
was carried off by the carelessness of the captain in per- 
mitting the slave to ship. 47 Later still it was held that the 

40 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 614. 

41 Session Laws, 1836, p. 81; Revised Statutes, 1845, ch. 129; Re- 
vised Statutes, 1855, ch. 121. The captain of the patrol could be 
fined if derelict in his duty. The members of the patrol were to 
serve a minimum of twelve hours a month, and were not to receive 
over twenty-five cents an hour. In i860 a special act was passed 
providing a patrol to search for firearms in the possession of the 
slaves of Cooper County (Session Laws, 1859, p. 471). Captain 
J. A. Wilson of Lexington said that patrol duty was irksome, and 
as a consequence the better classes often left the duty to a class 
that was brutal. "Uncle" Peter Clay of Liberty claims that the 
young slaves took great delight in docking the tails of the horses 
of the patrol and tripping them at night by means of ropes stretched 
across the roads. 

42 Ordinance of February 9, 181 1 (MS. Record Book of the Trus- 
tees of St. Louis, pp. 26-27). Stray slaves on the streets after nine 
o'clock were to receive ten lashes, and the owner was to be fined 
five dollars if they were not punished. In 1818 this was increased 
to fifteen lashes (ibid.). 

43 Ordinance of January 21, 1836 (Jeffersonian Republican, Jan- 
uary 23). 

44 Mandatory Ordinance, of June 16, 1836, in Jeffersonian Repub- 
lican, June 25. 

45 Russell v. Taylor, 4 Mo., 55°. 

46 Eaton v. Vaughan, 9 Mo., 743- 

47 Susan Price v. Thornton et al., 10 Mo., 135. 



1 84 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

owner was responsible even when the captain did not know 
that the slave was on board, unless the captain used proper 
care to guard against such an occurrence — " that degree of 
care . . . that prudent men would take in conducting their 
own affairs." 48 The shipowner was held responsible not 
only for the carelessness of his agent, the captain, 49 but also 
for that of the boat's clerk if the latter took money for the 
slave's passage, which fact was considered sufficient proof of 
trespass. 50 

The strictness with which the courts applied the law is 
illustrated by a case from the Buchanan circuit court, as 
reported in a newspaper of 1855 : " Dr. Fox's slave— a negro 
girl — was decoyed on board the Aubrey [at St. Joseph] by 
the watchman of the boat in the night time without the 
knowledge or consent of the commander or any of his sub- 
ordinates. ... No moral delinquency is attributed to any offi- 
cer of the Aubrey, except the watchman and he had been 
very promptly discharged. The girl was found on board 
between this city and Boonville, and as soon as discovered 
was immediately secured and afterwards placed in jail at 
that place, by Mr. Glime (chief clerk) who also from that 
place sent telegraphic dispatches to Dr. Fox, and the agents 
of the boat ... by which means the slave was promptly 
restored to her owner. . . . This case . . . has been completely 
and amicably settled; the defendant having paid to the 
plaintiff the sum of $450, and the plaintiff having given a 
full release of all claims against the boat." 51 This shows 
that the risk of escape, undoubtedly increased by the prox- 
imity of St. Joseph to the then turbulent Kansas, had affected 
the courts to such an extent that heavy damages were paid 
in a case where it was acknowledged that " no moral de- 
linquency" existed, and where the defendants had done 
everything to right the matter, including the immediate 
return of the slave. 

48 Withers v. Steamboat El Paso, 24 Mo., 204. 

49 Susan Price v. Thornton et al., 10 Mo., 135. 

50 Calvert v. Rider and Allen, 20 Mo., 146. 

51 T. H. Fox v. Steamer F. X. Aubrey (St. Joseph Commercial 
Cycle, September 7, 1855). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 185 

Perhaps Missouri suffered, especially during the fifties, 
from loss of slave property as did no other border State.' 
The Underground Railroad ran into the State from three 
sides, and its service appears to have been efficient. " The 
Underground Railroads," declared Trusten Polk in the 
United States Senate in 1861, "start mostly from these [the 
border] states. Hundreds of dollars are lost annually. And 
no state loses more than my own. Kentucky it is estimated, 
loses annually as much as $200,000. The other border states 
no doubt in the same ratio. Missouri much more." 52 As 
early as 1847 the legislature memorialized Congress for a 
better treaty of rendition, " as the citizens of this State are 
annually subjected to heavy losses of property, by the escape 
of their slaves, who pass through the State of Illinois, and 
finally find a secure place of refuge in Canada." 53 In 1846 
a mass-meeting of St. Louis citizens was held in the court 
house " to devise ways and means to protect their slave 
property in this city and county." 54 "When," mourns a 
Boone County editor in 1853, " will the abominable system 
of man-stealing, practiced by a portion of our northern peo- 
ple, find their operations checkmated and discountenanced 
by that professedly Christian and law-abiding people?" 55 

The loss of negroes by escape became unbearable as a 
result of the filling of Kansas by antislavery settlers, and the 
subject deserves attention at this point. The question of the 
real motive or motives behind the settlement of Kansas and 
the struggle which resulted has been a fruitful subject of 
debate. Many writers, especially those with antislavery 
leanings, have maintained that the whole affair from the 
conception of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise to the 

52 Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 356. In the intro- 
ductory pages of the Federal census of i860 there is the unsub- 
stantiated statement that " the greatest increase of escapes appears 
to have occurred in Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia" (Popula- 
tion, p. xv). 

53 Session Laws, 1846, p. 360. St. Genevieve County in 1845 peti- 
tioned the legislature for relief from the escape of her slaves through 
Illinois (House Journal, 13th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 332). 

54 James S. Thomas Scrapbook, vol. i, p. 26. 

55 Weekly Missouri Sentinel, April 28, 1853. 



1 86 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

admission of Kansas as a State was an organized effort of 
the slave States to expand their territory. 56 Slaveholding 
Missourians, however, have always asserted that from the 
standpoint of Missouri proslavery people it was purely a 
defensive movement to conserve existing slave property and 
an existing slave society. The present writer has come to 
the conclusion that as far as Missouri was concerned this 
latter argument is in the main correct, no matter what terri- 
torial ambitions to spread may have moved the South as a 
whole. While it cannot be denied that many Missourians 
had the desire to enlarge the slave power, yet one thing is 
certain, that outside of the Missouri counties near or imme- 
diately bordering on the Kansas line — Jackson, Platte, Clay, 
Ray, Holt, Buchanan, and so on, — sentiment for action was 
sluggish, and only fiery stump oratory and a wild plea from 
the radical press, both Democratic and Whig, aroused the 
populace to activity. As will be seen in the sequel, very few 
permanent settlers ever went from Missouri to Kansas with 
their slaves, and this is the chief argument against the con- 
tention that Missourians were engaged in a general offensive 
movement toward Kansas in order to spread slave territory. 
No matter how greatly many Missourians may have 
craved the rich prairies of Kansas as a field of exploitation 
for their black labor, it appears that their first thought was 
to defend what they already possessed. An observing man 
like W. F. Switzler dwells upon this point, but makes no 
mention of any idea of expansion. 57 " When Missourians 
have seen her citizens robbed of their property," wrote J. 

56 As an example see J. W. Burgess, The Middle Period, ch. xix. 
The Kansans have always taken pride in their instrumentality in 
driving slavery from Missouri, or at least in making the system 
most precarious there. But General J. G. Haskell admits that 
western Missouri looked upon an antislavery settlement of Kansas 
with indifference till the South pushed her to action, the slave- 
holder regarding an inhabited Kansas as merely a new market for 
his crops, which were largely raised by slave labor (pp. 32-37). 

57 " Apprehensive that Kansas would become a free State, many 
of our citizens especially on the Kansas border became seriously 
alarmed for the safety of their slaves, and in the excitement of 
the conflict were induced without authority of law, to cross over 
into Kansas with arms and with ballots to coerce the new State 
into the Union with a pro-slavery constitution" (p. 282). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 187 

Locke Hardeman of Saline County in June, 1855, "and 
members insulted and imprisoned for merely appealing to 
the laws of the land that proposes to guarantee the rights of 

property What shall Missourians do? ... If Kansas be 

settled by Abolitionists, can Missouri remain a slave State ? 
If Missouri goes by the board what will become of Ken- 
tucky ? Maryland ? Virginia ?" 58 Senator David R. Atchison 
as early as 1853 saw the real danger clearly. " Will you sit 
here at home," he said in a speech at Weston, " and permit 
the nigger thieves, the cattle, the vermin of the North to 
come into Nebraska ... run off with your negroes and 
depreciate the value of your slaves. . . . But we will repeal 
the Compromise. I would sooner see the whole of Nebraska 
in the bottom of hell than see it a Free State." 59 



58 MS. Hardeman to George R. Smith, June 10, 1855, Smith Pa- 
pers. Judge William C. Price of Springfield claimed the honor of 
originating the demand for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
"He claimed," says W. E. Connelley, "that he pressed this idea on 
the South, saying that Missouri could not remain slave with Iowa 
free on the North, Illinois free on the east, and a free state on the 
west. In short, Missouri had to accomplish the Repeal or become 
a free State. That was what Judge Price preached for twenty 
years before the War " (Statement of Price to Mr. Connelley, quoted 
by Ray, p. 247). On December 28, 1854, Mothersead of Gentry 
County introduced a resolution into the House declaring it to be 
the duty of " the State and her citizens to use all means consistent 
with the Constitution ... to prevent if possible that beautiful coun- 
try [Kansas] from becoming an asylum for abolitionists and free 
soilers, to harass and destroy our peace and safety" (House Journal, 
18th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 35-36). In his address at the Lexington 
Convention of 1855, President James Shannon of the State Univer- 
sity read a series of thirteen resolutions by Dr. Lee, the eighth of 
which reads as follows: "Resolved, That the whole state is iden- 
tified in interest and sympathy with the citizens on our Western 
border, and we will co-operate with them in all proper measures to 
prevent the foul demon of Abolition from planting a colony of 
negro-thieves on our frontier to harass our citizens and steal their 
property" (Proceedings, p. 29). "Already many of our slaves 
have been carried off and as self preservation is the first law of na- 
ture, it certainly cannot be objected to, if Missourians should adopt 
the most summary method to secure themselves against this ava- 
lanche of abolitionists on our frontier" (editorial in Richmond 
Weekly Mirror, January 26, 1855). _ 

59 Quoted by J. N. Holloway, History of Kansas, p. 97- This 
quotation in slightly different form is given in the Weston Platte 
Argus of December 26, 1856. But the editor claims that Atchison 
made no such statement and that the Reverend Frederick Starr lied 
in claiming that he stood immediately in front of Atchison and 



1 88 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Undoubtedly Atchison made this passionate plea to arouse 
feeling, but the very fact that emotion could be aroused by 
harping on this string makes it appear evident that the fear 
for property was stronger than the wish to expand slave 
territory. The first was a less abstract and less distant prop- 
osition. The antislavery forces of Missouri realized the 
whole situation. Kansas as a free State meant eventually a 
free Missouri. "So soon as Kansas will have constituted 
herself a free state," confidently boasted the Anzeiger des 
Westens in 1858, " slavery must fall in Missouri." 60 

It is not the purpose of this study to follow all of the 
struggles that Missouri experienced in her antebellum days, 
but simply to attempt to explain the motives of those actions 
which are related to the slavery issue. Others have sketched 
the development of the general agitation for the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise, and its immediate effect upon 
Kansas. 61 Here will be considered only the movement within 
the State, which practically begins on January 2, 1849, when 
the state Senate passed a resolution declaring that the Mis- 
souri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and void, 
and holding " Squatter Sovereignty " to be an axiom. 
" Whether the slave, or the free States," said this statement, 
" are willing to abide by said act, as a compromise, or not, 
is a matter of perfect indifference to the people of the terri- 
tories. Their right to self-government is wholly independent 
of all such compromises." 62 This idea is in harmony with 
the Napton Resolutions, which were before the legislature 
at the same time. An anti-Benton wing of the Democratic 
party consistently hammered away on this theme. Even 
Atchison was taken unawares, and seems to have lost cour- 
age. In his Fayette speech late in 1853 ne refused to vote 
for the organization of the Nebraska Territory till the Corn- 
heard him deliver the speech. Frank Blair on March 1, 1856, quotes 
Atchison himself as having made this statement (A Statement of 
Facts and a Few Suggestions in Review of Political Action, p. 75). 

60 Issue of April 10, quoted by the Republican of April 20, 1858. 

61 Ray, ch. iii ; Hodder, Genesis of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, 
pp. 69-86. 

62 Daily Union, January 6, 1849. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 189 

promise of 1820 should be repealed. 63 Benton's plea for the 
organization of the Kansas country as a necessity for de- 
veloping his " Central National Highway from the Missis- 
sippi to the Pacific " was most warmly advocated by his sup- 
porters, the Missouri Democrat and the Jefferson Inquirer. 6 * 
On January 9, 1854, Frank Blair, Gratz Brown, and others 
declared at a meeting of St. Louis Democrats that they 
regarded " all who oppose it [the immediate organization of 
Nebraska Territory] upon whatever pretext, as hostile to 
the best interest of this State." 65 

Whatever may have been the sincerity of the sparring 
between Benton and Atchison, it is evident that many Mis- 
sourians emphatically demanded the opening of Kansas. Was 
this an economic desire for the spread of hemp culture by 
Missouri slavemasters, or was it to forestall the possible free- 
state emigration? Both of these elements entered into the 
situation. Ray gives a number of contemporary quotations 
to prove that the desire of Missourians for the rich Kansas 
hemp lands was the cause of the whole movement. 66 Besides 
the statements noted by Ray several others could be men- 

63 Jefferson Inquirer, December 17, 1853. Ray has well described 
Atchison's position during this period and also Benton's " Central 
National Highway" (ch. iii). But Ray insistently keeps before the 
reader his untenable thesis that Atchison was the real author of the 
movement and of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. If Atchison was the 
father of the bill, his neighbors either did not know it or jealously 
denied him the honor. The St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, a Whig 
sheet, on September 28, 1855, sneered at the editor of the Weston 
Platte Argus for giving Atchison the honor. 

64 No attempt will be made in this study to outline this issue. 
Benton's nine-column letter on the subject can be found in the St. 
Louis Inquirer of April 2, 1853. The Missouri Democrat (St. 
Louis) in its issues of the early winter of 1852-53 had advocated 
the movement. 

65 Republican, June 21, 1854, as quoted by Atchison in his letter 
" To the People of Missouri." 

60 Pp. 81-83, 160-171, 250, etc. Ray was visibly impressed by 
Colonel John A. Parker's statement that the pnmary object which 
induced the initiation of the measure to repeal the Missouri Com- 
promise "was to secure the reelection of Mr. Atchison to the Senate. 
The means to be employed was to repeal the Compromise in order 
that the people of Missouri might carry their slaves to Kansas and 
there raise hemp" ("The Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill," in National Quarterly Review, July, 1880 [no. lxxxi], pp. 
105-118). 



I9O SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

tioned, but they are so few that it seems evident that the 
hemp issue was a minor one. 67 The Parkville Industrial 
Luminary and the St. Joseph Commercial Cycle preached 
hemp lands and Kansas with a vim, but otherwise there was 
little advocacy of such a program. These prints apparently 
were more deeply engaged in rousing the Missourians to 
settle the Territory than in giving them disinterested advice. 
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which repealed the Missouri 
Compromise and opened Kansas to slavery under the 
" Squatter Sovereignty " policy, was enthusiastically sup- 
ported by the anti-Benton Democrats and many of the Whigs 
of the State. All of the Missourians in Congress save 

67 The following appeared in the Weekly Missouri Sentinel of 
October 6, 1853 : " The Industrial Luminary expresses the opinion 
that many of those who have been waiting for the favorable action 
of Congress ... in relation to Nebraska will wait no longer but 
will go over and make their settlements before ' cold weather sets 
in.' " The Howard County Banner of October 6, 1853, stated edi- 
torially : " Is any one so bigoted and blind enough to suppose that 
this broad expanse of fertile territory in the very heart of our 
country ; and in the only road from ocean to ocean, left to savages 
and buffalo, and to remain a desert; one must be very . . . little 
acquainted with American character and enterprise [to have such 
an idea]. . . . The people will not await the slow motion of Con- 
gress" (quoted by the Missouri Sentinel of October 13). In arous- 
ing Missouri to colonize Kansas to save it from the abolitionists 
the St. Joseph Commercial Cycle pleaded on March 30, 1855, as 
follows : " What could commerce do without cotton, hemp, indigo, 
tobacco, rice and naval stores? All these are products of slave 
labor, and one of the articles, hemp, will be the main staple of 
Kansas." Frank Blair, fearing that the rich soil of Kansas would 
invite Missouri slave-owners, endeavored to frighten them by raising 
the phantom of competition. He said at a joint session of the legis- 
lature in January, 1855 : " A large proportion of the soil of Kansas 
is adapted to the cultivation of the staples produced in Missouri, 
and which can only be cultivated by slave labor. The whole extent 
of the Kansas river is adapted to the cultivation of hemp. All of 
Kansas along the Missouri river ... is likewise well suited to pro- 
duce hemp and tobacco. ... It is but natural to suppose, therefore, 
that many of the people of Missouri will sell out and move to these 
new, cheap, and fertile lands. ... It will be no advantage to our 
State ... to raise up a rival in the production of a staple in which, 
from the superior freshness and cheapness of her soil, she will very 
soon be able to undersell Missouri" (On the Subject of Senatorial 
Election, pamphlet, pp. 4-5). Immediately after the opening of Kansas 
to settlement the "Union Emigrant Society" was organized in Wash- 
ington. Blair was elected vice-president. Eli Thayer's Massachu- 
setts Aid Society seems to have caused more ill-feeling in Missouri, 
however (Republican, July 3, 1854). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS I9I 

Benton voted for the measure. 68 The Whigs of Boone 
County declared in March, 1854, that they approved "of the 
establishment of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, 
with power in the people who may settle in those Territories 
to regulate the subject of slavery within their own limits 
according to their own pleasure." 00 "Resolved that the 
Whigs of Marion County are in favor of the immediate 
organization of the Nebraska Territory," said another state- 
ment, " and that we indorse and are in favor of the bill now 
pending." 70 Similar resolutions were passed by the fourth 
Congregational Whig convention meeting at Plattsburg, July 
8, 1854. 71 Fifty of the sixty Whigs in the legislature met on 
Christmas day, 1854, and unanimously decreed that they 
would support only such candidates as acquiesced in the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill. 72 The party as a whole seems to 
have been a unit on this question. 

The anti-Benton Democrats were especially hostile toward 
the Compromise of 1820. " There is no power given Con- 
gress to say that slavery shall exist on one side of a line of 
latitude and shall not on the other," read Governor Sterling 
Price's message of December 25, 1854, "and hence in my 
opinion, that clause of the Missouri act was a nullity." 73 
The press of the period was burdened with Democratic reso- 
lutions favoring the repeal. In St. Louis a meeting of second 
ward Democrats declared on June 3, 1854, that they " con- 
gratulate the country on the cheering fact that the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill is now the law of the land." 74 Democratic 
expressions similar to the above are numerous. On the other 
hand, the Benton Democrats — Frank Blair, B. Gratz 
Brown, and others — were implacable enemies of the repeal. 

68 On this point see the comments of the Republican of June 22, 

1854. 

69 Ibid., March 16, 1854. 

70 Ibid. 

71 Missouri Statesman. July 17, 1854- „ — «,»!. 

72 Richmond Weekly Mirror, January 5. i8SS- The _ St J 0SC P n 
Commercial Cycle, a Whig organ, on September 28 1855, compli- 
mented Stephen A. Douglas for being the author of the repeal of 
that " odious measure," the Missouri Compromise. 

"House Journal, 18th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 31. 
74 Republican, June 5, 1854. 



IQ2 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Benton was most vociferous in condemning the attack on 
the Missouri Compromise, which he always considered a 
sacred compact. However, in 1855, the year following the 
repeal, his supporters claimed that he deserted this position 
and betrayed them as a bid for Missouri favor. 75 Whether 
this is true or not, it but proves the popularity of the repeal 
in the State. 

When Kansas was once open to settlement, its future 
status as a slave or a free State depending on whether pro- 
slavery or antislavery votes were in the majority when the 
constitution was adopted, events took place with great rapid- 
ity. In the late summer of 1853 colonists had arrived from 
Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri, although lands were not yet 
"subject to lawful settlement." 76 Some proslavery people 
at first looked upon efforts to make Kansas a free State as 
harmless. " Doubtless many more will be sent out to Kansas . 
by these Societies of the North with a view of making Kan- 
sas a free State. . . . But we do not at present believe they 
will be able to accomplish it," the St. Joseph Gazette said. 77 
The correspondent of the Republican wrote his sheet from 
Leavenworth, Kansas Territory, on December 17, 1854, that 
" notwithstanding the Aid Societies have poured in hordes 
of her paupers for the purpose of Abolitionizing Kansas, 
they either become initiated in our institutions, or leave as 
soon as they arrive. Now, if the South does her duty, and 
especially Missouri, the Northern hope of Abolitionizing 
Kansas, will be a phantom hope." 78 

75 " Benton has I think kicked over the pail of milk he produced 
for his friends by his vote to sustain the Missouri Compromise. 
He has made another speech acquiescing in the fraud [the repeal 
of the Compromise], evidently looking to Missouri prospects. He 
loses by it all prospects of the Presidency through the northern vote 
but stands better in Missouri" (MS. F. P. Blair, Sr., to Martin 
Van Buren, February 9, 1855, A. L. S., dated Silver Spring, Mary- 
land. Van Buren Papers, not bound). 

76 Weekly Missouri Sentinel, September 29, 1853, quoting the 
Parkville Luminary of unknown date. 

77 Date of issue not stated, quoted by the Republican of August 
24, 1854- 

78 Republican, December 30, 1854. Other proslavery people were 
also sanguine. " Kansas must of necessity be a slave state, as the 
slavery interest has now in possession nearly all the timber of the 
territory" (letter in Missouri Statesman, June 8, 1855). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 



193 



Missouri was soon called upon by the radical press and by 
" Atchison, Stringf ellow & Co." to do her " duty." Jack- 
son, Platte, Clinton, and other western counties by resolution 
and by organization condemned the settlement of Kansas by 
northern immigrants, and advocated proslavery action. 79 
On July 29, 1854, a large meeting was addressed at Weston 
by Atchison. B. F. and J. H. Stringfellow, and George 
Galloway were present. Here the " Platte County Self De- 
fensive Association" was formed. By resolution it was 
determined that the settlers sent out by the Emigrant Aid 
Society were to be turned back. The Defensive Association 
was to hold public meetings, urge the settlement of Kansas 
by proslavery men, and guard the territorial elections against 
frauds. The Kansas League, a subsidiary institution com- 
posed chiefly of the same persons, was formed to carry out 
the decrees of the association. It worked in secret, was 
bound by an oath, held meetings in the night, suppressed 
antislavery newspapers, and silenced Northern Methodist 
ministers. 80 The anti-Atchison forces answered by calling 
the Law and Order meeting at Weston on September 1. 
Their declaration was signed by one hundred and thirty-three 
citizens. They declared their loyalty to the General Govern- 
ment and their opposition to " violence and menace." 81 

The slave interests of the State were now thoroughly 
aroused. On December 28, 1854, Mothersead of Gentry 

79 See the Republican of July 13, 1854. On June 6, 1853, Atchison 
had harangued at Weston and on June 11 at Platte City (Repub- 
lican, June 22, 1853). At Parkville on August 8 he also aroused 
his hearers as to free-soil invasions of Kansas (ibid., August 31). 

80 Paxton, p. 184. Their badge was a skein of bleached silky 
hemp. Over five hundred signed the association agreement. Anti- 
slavery merchants and sympathizers were boycotted (The History 
of Clay and Platte Counties, p. 635)- Under the auspices of the asso- 
ciation B. F. Stringfellow wrote a series of essays which attempted 
to prove that slavery as found in the United States was a " bless. ng. 
From the Federal census reports of 1850 he sought to prove that 
there was less blindness, deafness, insanity, and idiocy among slaves 
than among whites or free blacks (St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, 
February 2, 1855). The whole series was published in this paper in 
the issues from February 2 to March 9, i8S5- The title is, ' Negro 
Slavery No Evil or The North and the South." 

81 Paxton, pp. 185-186; History of Clay and Platte Counties, p. 535- 

13 



194 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

County submitted five resolutions to the House of Repre- 
sentatives which declared that " the law organizing the Terri- 
tories of Kansas and Nebraska maintains the equality of the 
States, and the justice of the Constitution, and therefore 
demands our decided approval," and "That the State of 
Missouri as a slave State, and from local position, is deeply 
interested in the character of the Government that is insti- 
tuted in Kansas Territory, and that it is the duty of the State 
and her citizens, to use all means, consistent with the Consti- 
tution ... to prevent, if possible, that beautiful country be- 
coming an asylum for abolitionists and free-soilers, to harass 
and destroy our peace and safety." 82 Appeals were now 
made by the proslavery party for emigrants. " You can 
without exertion send 500 of your young men who will vote 
in favor of your institution," pleaded Atchison at Platte City 
on November 6, 1854. " Should each county in the state of 
Missouri only do its duty the question will be decided 
quietly and peaceably at the ballot box." 83 The press now 
loudly called for volunteer voters for Kansas. " Will Kansas 
be a free or a slave State?" queried the Liberty Tribune in 
the autumn of 1854, and continued: "Citizens of Missouri 
you must ACT . . . you must go to Kansas ; nothing else will 
do . . . you must go to Kansas NOW, for an election is soon 
to take place for a Delegate to Congress and the Territorial 
Legislature, and it is all important that the Abolitionists 
should be defeated in the first election, for by the Terri- 
torial law their Legislature can exclude slavery . . . you must 
nip the thing in the bud." 8 * " The hour for action in Kansas 
is at hand," was the clarion cry of a St. Joseph Whig editor 
in March, 1855, " and we call every free voter to the polls ! 
to the polls ! ! to the polls !!!... Let the minion of . . . his 
Aid Society stand back until he has redeemed the birthright 
he ignominiously sold, by a service of hard labor in tilling 

82 House Journal, 18th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 35, sees. 3, 4. On Feb- 
ruary 25, 1855, these were referred to the committee on Federal rela- 
tions (ibid., p. 175). They could not be traced farther. 

83 Quoted by Switzler, p. 492. 

84 Quoted by the Richmond Weekly Mirror of November 7, 1854. 
Date of Tribune not given. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 1 95 

the soil of Kansas." 85 The Richmond Weekly Mirror was 
comforted by the fact that " Missouri and the entire South 
are awake to a sense of their danger," and it bade God-speed 
to the departing voters. It advised the emigrants, however, 
to settle in Kansas and thereby become legal voters. 86 In 
Ray County six local meetings were held in February, 1855, 
and a call was made for voters to go to Kansas for the 
March election. 87 The practice at local county meetings was 
to elect delegates who would go to Kansas to vote. Yet for 
some the movement was too slow. The young bloods were 
dissatisfied with the efforts of their elders. On March 17 a 
body of the State University students assembled under the 
lead of Adjunct-Professor B. S. Head. They criticized the 
apathy of the Kansas meeting held the same day in Colum- 
bia, and passed the following declaration : " Be it resolved 
That we the youth of the South having within our bosoms 
a spark left of that patriotic spirit that fired the minds . . . 
of our Revolutionary sires ... do hereby express our con- 
demnation of the course . . . pursued by those whose age and 
mature judgment should have prompted them to set a nobler 
example to the rising generation." They passed a resolution 
to send a delegate voter to Kansas. 88 

At the time the Missourians made no denial of voting in 
Kansas and leaving that territory immediately afterward. 
They claimed that they were simply counteracting the deceit- 
ful and illegal action of the Emigrant Aid Society. In May 
the St. Joseph Commercial Cycle resented Governor Reeder's 
statement that the Missourians had carried the Kansas elec- 

85 St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, March 30, 1855. 

86 Issue of March 24, 1855. 

87 Richmond Weekly Mirror, February 16, 1855. An idea of the 
intense feeling engendered at this time can be gained from the fol- 
lowing editorial : " On yesterday a train of about forty abolition 
vagabonds and negro stealers passed through our town enrout for 
Kansas Territory. May the devil get them before they arrive at 
their journey's end. We understand they came off the steamer 
Golden State, now lying at Brunswick" (ibid., March 3). The 
Mirror was a Whig organ. 

88 Missouri Statesman, March 30, 1855. One Boone County citizen 
was so disgusted with the impudence of the students that he wrote 
a stinging letter in which he berated Professor Head and his 
"gosling" students (ibid.). 



I96 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

tion by " fraud, violence, and corruption." " We hurl back 
upon the head of this debased wretch, the vile slander which 
none but he . . . would proclaim to the world." That any 
fraud or violence was committed was flatly denied. " The 
people of Missouri were present at many of the precincts . . . 
to see that quiet and order might prevail." 89 The Liberty 
Tribune declared that Missourians voted in Kansas, "but 
only those who considered Kansas their home, and who were 
staying temporarily in Missouri, in order to shelter their 
families." 90 Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty stated that the 
Missourians went to Kansas feeling that they were justified, 
as the South considered that the North had broken a tacit 
agreement in engulfing Kansas after being given Nebraska. 
" There can be no doubt of there being secret organizations 
to secure votes in Kansas," he said. A Lexington editor in 
May, 1855, declared that the able-bodied males of that place 
had all gone to Kansas with a sense of deep sacrifice to the 
cause of the South. 91 

Endeavors were also made to colonize Kansas with slave- 
holders as the only permanent means of securing victory. 
The St. Joseph Commercial Cycle on October 12, 1855, agi- 
tated "a tax of one or two per cent, on all . . . real and 
personal property for the purpose of colonizing one thousand 
proslavery men in Kansas." 9 ? Silas Woodson and others 
issued a call for a meeting to consider an organization for 

89 Issue of May 25, 1855. As a Whig sheet the Cycle was in a 
peculiar position. It condemned Kansas abolitionists on the one 
hand and, on the other, their arch enemy Atchison as being a 
''Demagogue" and a " disunionist " (issue of July 13, 1855). It 
will be remembered that the Cycle was proslavery Whig and Atchi- 
son a proslavery Democrat. 

90 Quoted by the Republican of April 26, 1855, from the Tribune 
of unknown date. 

91 Republican, May 24, quoting from the Lexington Express of 
unknown date. It was claimed that Lafayette County spent $100,000 
on the Kansas invasions (Harvey, p. 125). "On the Kickapoo fer- 
ryboat, the following notice appears : ' Some illy-disposed persons 
have tried to injure my ferry by stating that I refused to carry 
persons last fall to the election. This is false. It would be difficult 
to find one more sound on the goose than I am. John Elles 
(Paxton, p. 198). 

92 For advocating this policy the Daily Intelligencer flayed the 
editor of the Cycle on October 20 (Cycle of November 2). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 



197 



this purpose, 93 and on December 31, 1855, the " Proslavery 
Aid Society" of Buchanan County was formed. Shares 
were to be sold as stock at twenty-five dollars each. Bien- 
nial meetings were to be held at the St. Joseph city hall. A 
vote was to be given for each share of stock, and a paid 
agent was to remain in Kansas. "All of the means of this 
society shall be faithfully applied to the purchasing of lands, 
and in furthering the interests of the proslavery party in 
Kansas Territory." 94 For very good reasons this society was 
a failure, and later efforts to colonize Kansas fared no better. 
When on March 17, 1855, it was proposed to send settlers 
from Boone County to Kansas it was found that "no one 
was heard of who desired to go to Kansas to live." 05 In 
some cases, however, success was partially realized. " Many 
citizens from Platte go over to Kansas," is read in an entry 
in the Annals of Platte County for September, 1854, "and 
locate claims and then return. Some were in earnest, and 
became actual settlers." 98 An attempt to raise money in Ray 
County at a meeting held on March 5, 1855, brought little 
result. 97 Benton contemptuously belittled the whole pro- 
slavery program to settle Kansas or vote there. " But a very 
small part of Missouri, and that in Atchison's neighborhood 
[Platte County] had anything to do with it," he wrote to 
J. M. Clayton in July, 1855. 08 

While the advance proslavery party were planning the 
invasion of Kansas with ballot and musket, 99 a tidal wave of 

93 St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, December 28, 1855. 

94 Ibid., January II, 1856. Articles of Incorporation. 

95 Missouri Statesman, March 30, 1855. 

96 P. 188. 

97 Richmond Weekly Mirror, March 10. 

98 MS. dated Washington, July 29, A. L. S., Clayton Papers, vol. 
xi, p. 2108. 

99 Considering the class of Missourians who agitated the Kansas 
invasion it does not seem possible that the " Border Ruffians " were 
the blear-eyed, maudlin, bloodthirsty brutes they are often pictured 
to have been. Excited they were with a fanatical crusading spirit, 
but low-lived sots they could not have been as a class. Neither 
were John Brown, Jim Lane, "Old Doctor" Doy, and their satellites 
the coarse-grained blacklegs of literature. They committed crimes 
as do all men laboring under a self-righteous enthusiasm. Many 
criminals naturally followed both camps, but the rank and file of 
both " armies " seem to have conscientiously followed an ideal. 



I98 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

political hysteria swept over western Missouri. " The aboli- 
tion excitement has been running so high at Weston," wrote 
a correspondent from Westport on August I, 1854, "that the 
authorities have ordered all free gentlemen of color to leave 
the town." 100 " Proslavery harangues provoked the people 
to frenzy and outrage. Those living east and north of Platte 
City became almost insane," reads an entry in the Annals of 
Platte County for April, 185s. 101 On April 14 a meeting 
was held at Parkville to threaten Northern Methodists. G. 
S. Park and W. J. Patterson of the Luminary were threat- 
ened with a plunge into the Missouri if they reappeared in 
the village, " and if they go to Kansas to reside, we pledge 
our honor as men, to follow and hang them whenever we 
can take them." The press was then dumped into the 
river. 102 " Atchison, Stringfellow & Co. have worked up 
quite a portion of Platte County to a fever-heat excitement," 
says the account of a conservative slaveholder, " and they 
appear ready for almost any rash act; but that feeling does 
not extend above that county. Buchanan, Andrew, Holt, 
etc., are quite calm and conservative in feeling and action. 
Some effort was made in Buchanan to raise steam, but it 
proved an entire failure." 103 On May 17, 1855, William 
Phillips, a Leavenworth abolitionist, was brought to Weston 

100 F rom a proslavery correspondent in the Republican of August 
4, 1854. 

101 P. 108. 

102 Missouri Statesman, April 27, 1855. See also Paxton, p. 198. 
This action was indorsed by meetings in Platte County and at Lib- 
erty (ibid., pp. 198-200). The statement of Park which caused the 
trouble can be found in the Missouri Statesman of June 1, 1855. 

103 Letter dated May 10, from " One of the largest slaveholders 
in Andrew county" (Missouri Statesman, June 8, 1855). The Ben- 
tonites and the Whigs, though many of the latter were radically pro- 
slavery, incessantly accused Atchison of arousing feeling to insure 
his reelection to the Federal Senate. His Whig competitor at the 
time was A. W. Doniphan. Early in July, 1855, a proslavery meeting 
was held in Platte County. Atchison's party pushed through the 
following resolution : " That in the selection of persons for office, 
State, Federal, or county, we will hereafter disregard all questions 
which have heretofore divided us as Whigs and Democrats." As 
the Whigs were in the majority at this meeting, one of them imme- 
diately moved that Doniphan be supported for the Senate. The 
Atchison party then withdrew its conciliatory resolution (letter in 
ibid., July 13, 1855). 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 



I 99 



where he was tarred and feathered, had half of his head 
shaved, was ridden on a rail, and was finally sold at auction 
by a negro. It was claimed, however, that the citizens of 
Weston did not participate in this affair. 104 

By the summer of 1855 the furor had become pretty gen- 
eral in western and central Missouri. The anti-Bentonites 
and radical Whigs advocated strenuous action, while Benton- 
ites, with some exceptions, and conservative Whigs preached 
law and order. 105 A letter of May 24 from James S. Rollins 
to George R. Smith well describes the conditions in Boone 
and neighboring counties. " I endorse your position through- 
out, and commend you, for having the courage to take it, 
unless the conservative men of the Country stand firm, and 
resist the spirit of reckless unprincipled fanaticism, which a 
few dangerous demagogues are exciting, there is positively 
no predicting what is to become of our institutions. . . . The 
demagogues are doing all in their power to get up excitement 
in this locality, — thus far they have not succeeded — they 
renew their efforts on the 2nd of June when a public meeting 
is called in this place. The principal instigators here, are . . . 
old McBride and . . . Shannon the Irishman, at the head of 
the college. . . . Let me tell you that no man is doing more to 
corrupt the public mind of Missouri, on these exciting ques- 
tions than the aforesaid Shannon . . . the excitement is con- 
fined chiefly to Platte, Clay & Jackson. . . . We should not 
hesitate to make the issue which Atchison and his Mobocrats 
have tendered and if the law abiding conservative portion of 
Missouri, those indeed, the real slave owners, most deeply 
interested in this question, are overpowered, it will only be 
that much worse for the country ... let us act." 108 

104 Republican, May 25, 1855, quoting from an issue of the Weston 
Platte Argus of unknown date. Another abolitionist, J. W. B. Kelly, 
was condemned by a Clay County public meeting in August, 1855, 
and as they had no tar he was asked to leave, which he did (Mis- 
souri Statesman, August 20, 1855). 

105 The Commercial Cycle of St. Joseph and the Weekly Mirror 
of Richmond were strongly proslavery Whig papers, while the I ni- 
ton Telegraph, Boonville Observer, and Hannibal Messenger were 
conservative Whig sheets. . 

106 MS. Smith Papers. The underlining of clauses for the sake ot 
emphasis as made by the writer has been omitted, as it is the rule 
rather than the exception. 



200 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The meeting of June 2, referred to in the above letter, well 
portrays the spirit of the extremist element. Radical Demo- 
crats and Whigs for the time buried the hatchet. Three of 
each party were appointed to draft resolutions which were 
reported to the Assembly by W. F. Switzler, who had gone 
temporarily into the jingo camp. Slavery was declared to be 
a legal institution, abolitionism was excoriated, " Squatter 
Sovereignty " and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were endorsed, 
and the agitation of the slavery issue in or out of Congress 
was condemned. The Union was declared to be the " palla- 
dium of our liberties," and Governor Reeder of Kansas was 
censured and with him the antislavery element in Kansas. 
Dr. Lee, one of the above committee of six, then offered a 
series of resolutions which declared that " odious measure," 
the Missouri Compromise, to be unconstitutional, and stated 
that " while we deprecate the necessity, we cannot too highly 
appreciate the patriotism of those Missourians who so freely 
gave their time and money for the purpose, in the recent 
election in Kansas of neutralizing said abolition efforts." 107 

Meanwhile there was a demand for a state proslavery con- 
vention. The St. Louis Intelligencer on June 6 advocated 
such an assemblage, and prayed that every delegate be a 
slave owner, as "we never yet knew a mob composed of 
slaveholders." 108 On June 21 a " Committee of Four" sent 
out a call from Lexington " To the Members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the State, and all true friends of the South 
and the Union." 109 

As a result the convention met at Lexington, July 12 to 
14, 1855. no The " Irishman " James Shannon, president of 



107 Switzler's Scrapbook for Years 1844-55, p. 229. Also in Mis- 
souri Statesman of June 8, 1855. 

108 Quoted by the Missouri Statesman of June 15. 

109 Ibid., June 29. Delegates to the convention were chosen at 
local county meetings. For example, on July 4 the proslavery party 
of Audrain County assembled in the court house at Mexico, selected 
representatives, and passed resolutions (Dollar Missouri Journal, 
July 19). But there were no Audrain County delegates listed in the 
official roster of the convention. 

110 The work of the convention can be found in the official pub- 
lished Proceedings and Resolutions. This pamphlet contains President 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 201 

the State University, delivered on July 13 a fanatical tirade 
on abolitionism in general and on the antislavery forces of 
Missouri and Kansas in particular. His effort so pleased 
the leaders of the movement— Judge W. B. Napton, Sterling 
Price, and others— that it was ordered to be printed with the 
proceedings. 111 

Great enthusiasm marked the progress of the convention. 
Twenty-five counties were represented on the opening day. 
Later two delegates arrived from St. Louis, bringing the 
number up to 226 from 26 counties. 113 Of these delegates 
one writer found that 150 were from counties which had 
gone Whig in the previous election, 18 were from anti- 
Benton counties, 15 from Benton counties, and the other 41 
were from counties which were Whig and anti-Benton. 113 
This analysis, however, is most misleading. Naturally it 
was the radical proslavery element alone in any county which 
met to elect the delegates, and the majority party in the 
county did not necessarily have any control in the selection. 
That many Whigs joined the Kansas invasions and helped 
to fan the flame at home is certain. 114 On the other hand, 
the law and order forces were led by the great Whigs — 
Rollins, Smith, Doniphan, and others. In 1855 Whig and 
Democrat differed fundamentally on the tariff, the cur- 
rency, and kindred subjects, but differences on the slavery 

Shannon's address, the Address of the Convention to the People of 
the United States, and the Proceedings and Resolutions. The pro- 
ceedings can also be found in the Missouri Statesman of July 20, 
the Missouri Weekly Sentinel of July 20, the Weekly Pilot of July 
21, the Dollar Missouri Journal of July 19, and in most of the other 
Missouri papers. 

111 Proceedings, pp. 6-31. The opposition criticized Shannon as 
being "unprofessional" and "anti-ministerial" in his public activity 
(Missouri Statesman, October 20, 25, 1855). President Shannon 
was a minister in the Christian (Disciples) Church. 

112 Proceedings, pp. 19-21. 

118 Tupes, p. 61. He did not include the two delegates from bt. 

Louis. , „ . , ,, w 

" 4 "I will not talk about the Kansas troubles, said Mr. Martin 
J. Hubble of Springfield. " I did not favor the agitation. Many 
Whigs did however." " Party made no difference in the Kansas 
struggle," stated Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty. " James H. Moss 
and Hiram A. Bledsoe of Lafayette county were prominent Whigs 
who led in the invasions." 



202 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

question were largely a matter of personal opinion, not a 
party issue. 

Judge W. B. Napton seems to have been the leading spirit 
in the convention. He introduced a series of resolutions 
covering the whole subject of slavery in the abstract and in 
its concrete application to Kansas. A committee of five was 
appointed to draw up an address to the people of the United 
States " setting forth the history of this Kansas excite- 
ment." 115 In this paper the danger to western Missouri slave 
property, and indeed to the slavery system throughout the 
.country, was enlarged upon. Emigrant aid societies were 
condemned, the presence of a widespread desire for emanci- 
pation in Missouri was denied, and the entire political situ- 
ation as it related to slavery was elaborately discussed. 116 

The resolutions of the Lexington convention did not carry 
with them the pacification of the whirlwind in Missouri. As 
northern settlers continued to pour into Kansas, political 
convulsions in Missouri increased. Nearly a year after the 
convention R. C. Ewing wrote George R. Smith from 
Lexington : " I find . . . the Slavery question ... all absorb- 
ing. . . . Your reported opinion in relation to Kansas is doing 
you a deal of damage in Saline, Lafayette, & Jackson. . . . 
You had as well try to oppose an avalanche as the influence 
of this Kansas excitement." 117 Armed invasions of Kansas 
by Atchison and his henchmen ensued, but in this connection 
we are interested only in the effect of the settlement of 
Kansas on the escape of the Missouri slave. 

After the struggle had resulted in a victory for the anti- 
slavery forces, the golden age of slave absconding opened. 

115 Proceedings, pp. 22-24. Torbert of Cooper County advocated 
retaliatory measures against the products and manufactures of Mas- 
sachusettsand other States which had opposed the Fugitive Slave 
Law. This resolution was adopted (ibid., p. 25). Knownslar of 
Lafayette County introduced a resolution to make more " effective 
laws, suppressing within said States [slave States] the circulation 
of abolition or f reesoil publications, and the promulgation of f reesoil 
or abolition opinions." This resolution was also adopted (ibid., p. 27). 

116 Besides being printed with the Proceedings, the Address can 
be found in the Weekly Pilot of October 5 and in the Missouri 
Statesman of October 19. 

117 MS. dated June 19, 1856, Smith Papers. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 203 

Escapes apparently increased each year till the Civil War 
caused a general exodus of slave property from the State. 
The enterprising abolition fraternity of Kansas— Brown, 
Lane, Doy, and the rest — seemingly made it their religious 
duty to reduce the sins of the Missouri slaveholder by re- 
lieving him of all the slave property possible. The problem 
became so grave that in 1857 the General Assembly by joint 
resolution instructed the Missouri representatives in Con- 
gress to demand of the Federal government the securing of 
their property as guaranteed by the Constitution, and in par- 
ticular protested against the action of certain citizens of 
Chicago who had aided fugitives to escape and had hindered 
and mistreated Missouri citizens in search of their slaves. 118 
In this same year two members of the legislature independ- 
ently introduced amendments to the patrolling laws, which, 
although not adopted, received such strong support that they 
were printed in the appendix of the House Journal. These 
bills provided that special patrols should be created in the 
counties on the Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas borders, to be 
supported by a special tax levied on the slave property of the 
State. These patrols were to watch free negroes and ex- 
amine all ferries and other river craft. Any boat not licensed 
was to be cut loose, and if it was not chained and locked 
the owner was to be fined one thousand dollars. 119 This 
shows the nature and the constancy of the danger to which 
the slaveholder's property was subjected. 

The Underground Railroad was now running very 
smoothly. Neighboring States reveled in Missouri's 
misery. Galesburg, Illinois, and Grinnell, Iowa, were con- 

118 House Journal, 18th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 206, and app., p. 31.3. 
February 14, 1857. An account of this Chicago episode is found in 
the Weekly Pilot of May 26, 1855. At times Illinois seems to have 
done her duty in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. "Last week, 
two negro men supposed to be slaves, who had escaped from a 
steamboat whilst ics bound in the river . . . were arrested in the 
town of Benton, Illinois. As the citizens had no means of detain- 
ing them, not having sufficient evidence that they were slaves, they 
were lodged in jail under a charge of petit larceny. This charge, 
however, would not justify a long detention" (Republican, January 

119 House Journal, 18th Ass., Adj. Sess., app., pp. 276-278. 



204 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

sidered havens for the fugitive. 120 Philo Carpenter of 
Chicago is said to have helped two hundred Missouri slaves 
to Canada. 121 The route of the western Missouri division 
of the Underground was by Kansas, circling Leavenworth, 
Atchison, Lecompton, and other proslavery settlements, and 
thence by way of Tabor, Iowa, to Canada. John E. Stewart 
and Dr. John Doy are said to have shipped a hundred slaves, 
averaging in value $1000, for the recovery of each of which 
a reward of $200 was offered. John Brown was rumored 
to have carried off sixty-eight. 122 

To many Missouri slaveholders the seriousness of the 
problem must have been overwhelming. " It [slave abduc- 
tion] threatens to subvert the institution in this State," said 
an editorial of 1855, " and unless effectually checked will 
certainly do so. There is no doubt that ten slaves are now 
stolen from Missouri to every one that was spirited off be- 
fore the Douglas bill." 123 As a result of this unrest many 

120 Siebert, pp. 97-98. 

121 Ibid., p. 147. 

122 Anonymous, "The Underground Rail Road in Kansas" (Kan- 
sas City Star, July 2, 1905). As Lecompton lay between Lawrence 
and Topeka, both the Mound City and the Lawrence routes made 
for Holton and then for Nebraska City and Tabor (ibid.). Accord- 
ing to another writer, many are said to have escaped by way of 
Tabor, but no figures or particulars are given (A. A. Minick, " The 
Underground Railway in Nebraska," Collections of the Nebraska 
State Historical Society, ser. ii, vol. ii, p. 70). Ten or twelve dis- 
appeared from Platte County during 1854-55 (History of Clay and 
Platte Counties, p. 632). Four slaves escaped from Platte County 
in June, 1855, through the aid of three whites (Missouri Statesman, 
June 29, 1855, quoting from the Parkville Democrat of June 16). 
The legends which were woven about the slave raids from Kansas 
were often most fantastically colored. For instance, James Redpath 
states that after Brown's famous raid the slave population of Bates 
and Vernon Counties was reduced from five hundred to "not over 
fifty slaves" from being sold south and from escapes (Public Life 
of Captain John Brown, p. 221). As a matter of fact, these two 
counties together had 471 slaves in 1856 (State Census, 1856, Senate 
Journal, 19th Ass., 1st Sess., fly-leaf in the appendix), while in i860, 
after Brown's raid, there were more than before the raid, 535 being 
accredited to these counties in the Federal census of i860 (Popula- 
tion, p. 208). The depositions of several border county slave- 
owners who lost property through Kansas forays can be found in 
House Journal, 20th Ass., 1st Sess., app., pp. 79-80. 

128 Quoted_ by Siebert, p. 194, from the Independent of January 
18, 1855, which in turn quotes from an issue of the Daily Intelli- 
gencer of unknown date. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 205 

owners seem to have moved their negroes to safer regions. 
General Haskell of Kansas states that while going down the 
Missouri in December, 1858, there was a continuous stream 
of slaves driven on board his boat. By the time he reached 
Jefferson City there were three hundred and fifty bondmen 
aboard. 124 This account is confirmed by a similar report in 
a St. Joseph paper of i860. " Within ten days no less than 
one hundred slaves were sold in this district, and shipped 
South. Owners are panic struck, and are glad to sell at any 
price." An " excellent house-keeper " sold for $900 for 
whom $1200 had been offered the year before. 125 

Not all slaveholders considered western Missouri as un- 
safe for slave property, as did the above. An army officer 
in 1857 wrote from St. Louis to George R. Smith of Pettis 
County that he had ten negroes at Fort Leavenworth whom 
he feared the abolitionists might run off. " I wish to pur- 
chase a tract of land for cultivation," he wrote, " to put my 
negroes on. ... I am offered fine tracts near Jefferson City 
and Boonville. I am advised by some of my friends to make 

a location in Mississippi I will visit your county if your 

answer to my questions seem to warrant it." 128 A man as 
well informed as an army officer would not debate between 
Missouri and Mississippi when several thousand dollars' 
worth of slaves were concerned if he thought the State was 
as unsafe a place for slave property as many believed it. At 
the same time, newspaper accounts of escapes are numerous 
during the years from 1850 to i86o. 12T As in the other 

124 p 2 7 The Reverend Frederick Starr claimed that escapes 
were so numerous in 1853 that the planters of river counties were 
moving to Texas (Letter no. i, p. 16). 

125 Quoted in the Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1861) of the 
American Anti-Slavery Society, p. 141, from the St. Joseph Demo- 
crat of unknown date. D 

126 MS Lackfield Maclin to Smith, June 25, 1857. Smith Papers 

127 " We have noticed with regret, that for more than a year the 
negroes have been running away from the eastern put of this 
[Lafayette] county, and the western part of Saline, while n the 
other parts of this county and adjoining counties very few attemp 
to escape. Is there no cause for this? Is there not some branch of 
the underground railroad leading from the neighborhood of Dover 
and Waverley?" (Richmond Weekly Mirror, September 15, 1854). 



206 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

border States, the advertisement, with a cut of the flying 
negro with his earthly goods in a bandana swinging from a 
stick over his shoulder, is seen in almost every issue of 
nearly every paper. 

The opening of the Civil War at once released thousands 
of negroes. As it continued many of the slaves of western 
Missouri ran for Kansas. "$200,000 of colored wealth 
walked off in the night to the bleeding shores of our neigh- 
boring state and ' turned up ' there as citizens," said a con- 
temporary. 128 An entry in the Annals of Platte County for 
February 1, 1865, states that the Missouri was frozen over 
and that many slaves had crossed to Kansas and enlisted in 
the Federal army, and another item for April 1 declares that 
slaves were daily escaping, being enticed away by Union 
soldiers. 129 The Federal census of i860 gave Missouri 114,- 
931 slaves. 130 Of these but 73,811 were in the State in 
1863. 131 Many had enlisted in the Federal army, and many 
had fled to free territory. So many Missouri slaves took 
active part in the War that even the emancipationists were 
alarmed. In the " Charcoal " Convention of September, 
1863, the radical emancipation party expressed their indigna- 
tion. McCoy of Caldwell County offered among other reso- 
lutions the following : " Whereas, The slaves heretofore 
held in bondage in Missouri are rapidly escaping into sur- 
rounding States, and entering the army there, being credited 
to those states and as circumstances necessitate the draft for 
filling up the decimated regiments of our own State. . . . 

Six slaves were discovered storing arms in Marion County prepara- 
tory to trying the "Underground" in 1855 (Weekly Pilot, April 
28, 1855). Eight hundred dollars reward was offered for four slaves 
who escaped from C. Cox and R. Middleton of St. Joseph on Sep- 
tember 22, 1855. " It is believed that said slaves are aiming to go 
to Iowa and thence to Chicago," runs this advertisement (St. Joseph 
Commercial Cycle, September 28, 1855). 

128 William Kauscher of Oregon, Missouri, in a speech delivered 
by him at that place on July 4, 1876, entitled, " Holt County During 
the War " (Wm. Hyde Scrapbook, volume on " Early St. Louis and 
Missouri "). 

129 Pp. 325, 327. 

130 Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 280. 

131 Report of the State Auditor of Missouri for 1865, p. 39. 



MISSOURI AND KANSAS 207 

We respectfully demand of General Schofield, permission to 
recruit colored men belonging to disloyal men of this State 
... to be accredited on the quota of Missouri troops." 182 

From what has been said it is clear that the escape of the 
slave was a problem in Missouri throughout the whole 
slavery period. It may have been that in many instances the 
press and political agitators sought to arouse popular fear by 
holding up the spectre of a vast negro migration, represent- 
ing millions of capital and the only obtainable labor, moving 
across the sluggish Missouri in the skiffs of the Massa- 
chusetts abolitionists, with " Beecher's Bible " in hand and 
with Underground ticket in pocket, or by predicting a gen- 
eral exodus over the level boundaries of Jackson and Cass 
Counties, guided by dark, bearded satellites of John Brown 
or Jim Lane. Events proved that the slavery system, espe- 
cially in western Missouri, was in danger, and in the fifties 
the hard-headed Missourian needed no lurid tales to arouse 
his fears and stir his resentment. 

132 Journal, Missouri State Radical Convention, 1863, p. 10. 



CHAPTER VII 
Manumission, Colonization, and Emancipation 

The power of the master to manumit his slave was recog- 
nized from colonial days. 1 Although Missouri was in the 
throes of slavery agitation many times, and although the free 
negro was as little favored there as elsewhere, yet the privi- 
lege of granting freedom under a set legal form was never 
denied, despite the fact that attempts were made to abridge 
it. 2 Nevertheless the power to manumit a slave appears to 
have been considered a privilege rather than a right, as its 
exercise was thought dangerous to society. On one occasion 
the state supreme court declared that " that power [manu- 
mission] could only be exercised by the consent of the 
sovereignty ... the whole community being alike interested." 8 

The effect of Christian baptism upon the status of the 
slave had been settled by the older slave States long before 
the Missouri country came under the dominion of the United 

1 The words "emancipation" and "manumission" were used 
synonymously in the laws, but as the former has assumed a political 
significance, meaning the freeing of the whole race, the latter term, 
having a strict legal and personal relation, will be used in this por- 
tion of the chapter. 

u 2 On January 7, 1833, the Senate rejected an amendment to limit 
"every act of emancipation" to a period of six months. All slaves 
manumitted contrary to this act were to become the property of the 
county at the end of six months. This amendment was rejected by 
a vote of 10 to 5 (Senate Journal, 7th Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 152-153). 
On January 14 the Senate passed a " rider " providing that the 
former masters of slaves thereafter freed should be "responsible 
and reliable for the conduct of the person or persons emancipated" 
as long as the latter resided in the State. It passed the Senate by 
a vote of 10 to 7 (ibid., p. 172), but in the House was rejected along 
with the bill to which it was attached by a vote of 25 to 20 (House 
Journal, 7th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 214). 

3 Rennick v. Chloe, 7 Mo., 197. In Charlotte v. Chouteau it was 
stated that it was not the policy of the slaveholding States to 
"favor" the liberation of the slave (11 Mo., 193). 

208 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 200, 

States. 4 Emancipation was not a consequence of this relig- 
ious rite, hence the subject needed no discussion in Missouri. 
Emancipation by testament was possible, and the Code of 
1804 gave the form of procedure by which a slave could be 
liberated by will or other instrument in writing. When this 
was under seal of the district court of the Territory and was 
attested by two witnesses, the document made the slaves as 
free "as if they had been particularly named and freed by 
this act." To prevent fraud the freedman cc M be seized to 
satisfy his owner's debts contracted before 1. liberation. 
To prevent the free negro becoming a burden to society the 
slave manumitted must be " sound in mind and body," not 
over forty years of age or under twenty-one if a male, or 
eighteen if a female. The late owner's property could "be 
attached if his former slave was incapable of self-support. 
Should an executor neglect to obtain the necessary papers 
for the one manumitted he was liable to a thirty-dollar fine. 
A negro without the papers proving his freedom was to be 
held by a justice until they could be obtained. If he could 
not pay his taxes, he was to be hired out. 5 

The constitution of 1820 gave the legislature power to 
pass laws permitting the freeing of the slave but " saving 

4 This subject is discussed in Ballagh, p. 119; and in J. R. Brackett, 
" The Negro in Maryland " in J. H. U. Studies, extra volume vi, 
pp. 28-29. 

5 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 3, sees. 23, 24, 25. The papers prov- 
ing the slave's freedom, which the various codes provided that he 
must receive, were often very jealously carried about by him. The 
following is a specimen of one of these: "Know all men by these 
presents that I James Johnson of the County of Gasconade in the 
State of Missouri for divers good considerations me unto moving 
and inducing have emancipated set free and discharged from slavery 
my negro girl named Parthenia aged about twenty six years to be 
and remain from this time a free woman discharged from bondage. 
St. Louis October 15th, 1853" The witnesses were M. S. Carre 
and United States Senator Trusten Polk. It was also signed by 
the manumittor in the St. Louis circuit c urt. This paper is in the 
collection of Mr. W. C. Breckenridge of St. Louis. It is numbered 
504 Mr. Breckenridge also has a deed of manumission dated as 
late as August 27, 1864. It was granted by Russell H. WestCOtt to 
Indy Hines. Dr. John Doy, the Kansas abolitionist, claimed that he 
knew of several cases in which free negroes had their papers de- 
stroyed and were then sold into bondage (pp. 61, 93-95)- 

14 



210 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

the rights of creditors." 8 The later slave codes followed 
the form of 1804 in substance, adding that " such emancipa- 
tion shall have the effect to discharge the slave from the per- 
formance of any contract entered into during servitude, and 
shall make such slave as fully and perfectly free, as if such 
slave had been born free." 7 Of course this would not give 
the freedman the legal status of the white but simply that of 
the despised free negro who could not be educated, 8 who 
had no standing in court save when a negro was on trial, 
and who was usually treated with indignity. 10 

In 1836 the law was somewhat loosely interpreted, it being 
held that " when any person owns a slave, and is desirous 
to set him free . . . the same can be done by a deed or instru- 
ment in writing . . . acknowledged before a justice of the 
peace . . . without any reference whatever to that part of the 
act which requires a deed under seal to be attested by two 
witnesses," as the latter was needed only when immediate 
emancipation was in view. 11 Some years later it was stated 
that the mere promise of the late owner was not sufficient, 
but that the legal document was necessary, 12 while in 1856 it 
was held that a will regularly drawn, though not probated, 
was a valid act of manumission even if inefficacious as a 

6 Art. iii, sec. 26. 

7 Revised Laws, 1835, p. 581, art. ii, sec. 2; Revised Statutes, 1845, 
ch. 167, art. ii, sec. 2; Revised Statutes, 1855, ch. 150, art. ii, sec. 2. 
These laws were all repealed February 15, 1864 (Session Laws, 1863, 
p. 108, sec. 1). The above statutes were evidently influenced by a 
Virginia law as old as_ 1782 which required a deed of manumission 
to be signed by two witnesses in the county court, and further pro- 
viding that the negroes " shall thereupon be entirely and fully dis- 
charged from the performance of any contract entered into during 
servitude, and enjoy as full freedom as if they had been particularly 
named and freed by this act" (Hening, vol. xi, p. 39, sec. 1). 

8 See above, p. 83. 

9 See above, p. 76. 

10 All religious and other assemblies of free negroes were under 
surveillance (see above, p. 180). The admission of free blacks to the 
State was forbidden at various times (Constitution, 1820, art. iii, 
sec. 26; Revised Laws, 1825, vol. ii, p. 600, sec. 4). In how many of 
the States the free negro was a complete citizen under the law is 
still a question. 

11 Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo., 371. 

12 Robert v. Melung, 9 Mo., 171. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 



21 I 



will. 13 In the very rigid case of Redmond v. Murry et al.', 
wherein a slave held his master's receipt for most of his 
purchase price, it was plainly enunciated that this contract 
of manumission, being " a mere intention or promise by the 
master, not consummated in the manner pointed out by law, 
however solemn such promise may have been made, can con- 
fer no power or capacity on the slave to have it enforced." 14 

By 1863 the Civil War had so changed the fortunes of the 
slave power that in a decision of that year Judge Bay de- 
clared that an act or will providing freedom might be pre- 
sumed from such acts of the master as afforded a sufficient 
ground for the presumption. 16 

This form of manumission took effect either immediately, 
or at the death of the owner, or within a stated period. In 
one instance a negress was to be hired out for a term of four 
years after the master's death, and a child she bore within 
that time was sold to pay certain debts and expenses of the 
estate. 16 Another negress was to serve for ten years and 
then be free. A child she bore within those years was also 
held to be a slave. 17 

Although not encouraging manumission, Missouri seems 
to have given the slave ample opportunity to sue for free- 
dom. As early as 1807 the territorial government passed 
quite a comprehensive procedure permitting "any person 
held in slavery to petition the general court of common pleas, 
praying that such person may be permitted to sue as a poor 
person." Under this legal fiction a slave could have full 
opportunity to fight for his freedom. The court was to 
assign counsel for the petitioner, allow him reasonable liberty 
to attend his counsel, and see that he was not subjected to 
any severity by his owner for bringing the suit. If the court 
feared a violation of this provision, the slave could be taken 
by habeas corpus and hired out, the earnings of such hire to 
go to the party winning the suit. The jury was to be in- 

13 Schropshire v. London et al., 23 Mo., 393- 

14 30 Mo., 570. 

15 Louis et al. v. Hart Adm'r, 33 Mo., 535- 

16 Erwin v. Henry, 5 Mo., 470. 

17 Lee v. Sprague, 14 Mo., 476- 



212 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

structed that the " weight of evidence lies with the petitioner 
[the slave]," and jurors were to have regard not only to the 
written evidence of the claim to freedom, but also to such 
other proofs either at law or equity as the very right and 
justice of the case might require. Either party might ap- 
peal the case to the general court. 18 In practice as well as 
in the word of the law the court was liberal toward the 
suing slave. Instances can be found in which the court 
ordered that the slave be protected while the case was pend- 
ing and be given freedom to communicate with his attorney. 19 
An act very similar to the above was passed in 1824. It 
provided that " such actions shall be conducted in other re- 
spects in the same manner as the like actions in other 
cases." 20 A law still more liberal was passed in 1835 which, 
being reenacted in the later revisions, became the working 
statute about which a multitude of cases were argued down 
to the time of the Civil War. The circuit courts were sub- 
stituted for the old territorial district court as the body be- 
fore which the manumissions were recorded. 21 

18 Territorial Laws, vol. i, ch. 35, sees. 1-4. In the MS. Records 
of the St. Louis General Court are several cases arising under this 
law: Matilda v. Van Ribber (vol. ii, p. 144) ; Layburn v. Rice (ibid., 
p. 164) ; and Whinney v. Phoebe Rewitt (ibid., p. 172). The habeas 
corpus clause of this law must have caused some dissatisfaction, as 
in the Revision of 1855 it was stated that " no negro or mulatto 
held as a slave within this State or lawfully arrested as a fugitive 
from service from another State . . . shall be discharged . . . under 
. . . this act [habeas corpus]" (vol. i, ch. 73, art. iii, sec. 8). 

19 The following entry is found in the MS. Records of the St. 
Louis Circuit Court for July 24, 1832 : " Stephen W. Ferguson presents 
the petition of Susan a girl of color praying that she may be per- 
mitted to institute suit against Lemon Parker for establishing her 
right to freedom and that she may be permitted to sue as a poor 
person, therefore the court permitted the said Susan and assigned 
the said Stephen W. Ferguson Esq., as her counsel and it is ordered 
by the court that said Lemon Parker permit the said petitioner to 
have reasonable liberty of attending her counsel and the court 
when the occasion may require it, that the said petitioner shall not 
be taken or removed out of the jurisdiction of the court, or be 
subject to any severity of treatment on account of her said appli- 
cation for freedom" (vol. vi, pp. 337-338). 

20 Revised Laws, 1825, vol. i, p. 404. In Gordon v. Duncan a negro 
was given the value of his services during the pending of the suit 
(3 Mo., 272). 

21 Revised Statutes, 1835, P- 284. It was also here provided that 
the judge could grant the deed of manumission during the vacation 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 213 

The classical Missouri suit for freedom is of course the 
case of Dred Scott, the story of which has been often told." 
An account which well shows the struggle experienced by 
some negroes in suing for their liberty is that of Lucy 
Delaney. The story is undoubtedly told with bias. She 
states that her mother and three other colored children were 
kidnapped from Illinois and taken to Missouri, where they 
were sold into slavery. Later Lucy's mother married a slave 
of Major Taylor Berry of Franklin County. Before enter- 
ing a fatal duel the latter " arranged his affairs and made 
his will, leaving his negroes to his wife during her life 
time and at her death they were to be free." Nevertheless 
Lucy's father was sold south. Her mother later brought 
suit and gained her own freedom. On September 8, 1842, 
the mother started proceedings to obtain Lucy's freedom 
from her old master's daughter. The court required this 
lady's husband to give bond for two thousand dollars as a 
guarantee that he would not remove Lucy from the State 
while the case was pending. The guarantor then had her 
placed in jail, lest, as he said, "her mother or some of her 
crew might run her off, just to make me pay the two thousand 
dollars; and I would like to see her lawyer or any other 
man in jail that would take up a . . . nigger case like that." 
Lucy was kept in jail for seventeen months. As the mother 
when suing for her own freedom had not mentioned her 
children, the defence endeavored to prove that they were 
not hers. At this point Edward Bates took up the matter, 

of the court and that the slave could be hired out if the defendant 
(master) refused to enter into a recognizance, and the plaintiff was 
denied the right to recover damages for false imprisonment in case 
his enslavement was held to be illegal (ibid., sees. I, 2, 8, 14). This 
law was reenacted in the Revision of 184S (ch. 70). A section was 
added giving the sheriff power to collect the slaves earnings in 
case he was hired out by the court pending the suit, and invest them 
at from three to six per cent. In this shape the law was reenacted 
in the Revision of 1855 (ch. 69)- «n-4Jw 

22 The best account of this negro is that of P. £ Hill, geaswe 
Battles of the Law: Dred Scott v. Sanford," in Harpers Monthly 
Magazine! vol. cxv, p. 244. The various legal treatises covering 
the case will be found in note 40 of this chapter. 



214 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

and after much difficulty obtained the girl's freedom. 23 This 
was perhaps an exceptional case, but it shows what the negro 
might be forced to undergo, even when he appealed to the 
courts. 

As was learned above, the burden of proof lay with the 
plaintiff, who was further at a disadvantage in that " color 
raised the presumption of slavery." 24 The court, however, 
declared that the legislature in framing the law endeavored 
to put fairly the question of freedom between the parties. 25 
Just before the Civil War the court held further that " if a 
negro sues for his freedom he must make out his case by 
proof like any other plaintiff, but the law does not couple 
the right to sue with ungenerous conditions; and he may 
prove such facts as are pertinent to the issue, and may in- 
voke such presumption as the law derives from particular 
facts." 26 It was held that the claimant of a slave could 
not enter court "and disprove the matter [in the petition], 
and thereby prevent the institution of a suit," as this would 
result in "every object of the law" being defeated. It 
would also be equivalent to a master's bringing suit against 
his slave, a procedure which could not be allowed without 
statutory provision. 27 The plaintiff had to sue in person, 
another not being competent to do it for him, since he was a 
slave " as long as he acquiesced in his condition." 28 On 
the other hand, the slave had the common-law privilege of 
having excluded as testimony any admission he might ever 
have made that he was rightfully a slave. 29 Property in 
slaves did not lapse through the statute of limitations. A 
master might permit an infant to remain with its free 

23 Pp. 2-1 1, 24-35- 

24 See also Susan v. Hight, 1 Mo., 82, and Rennick v. Chloe, 7 
Mo., 197. 

25 Susan v. Hight, 1 Mo., 82. 

26 Charlotte v. Chouteau, 25 Mo., 465. 

27 Catiche v. Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 1 Mo., 432. 

28 Calvert v. Steamboat " Timolene," 15 Mo., 595. 

29 Vincent v. Duncan, 2 Mo., 174. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 21 5 

mother, and when grown up it might even work and return 
its wages to the mother, but it continued to be a slave. 30 

A great deal of litigation arose relative to the Ordinance 
of 1787. Settlers moving from the eastward to Missouri 
often took up land in Illinois as they passed through the 
State, then at some later time moved on to Missouri with their 
slaves. From this situation there resulted a long series of 
cases culminating in the Dred Scott case of 1852. As there 
was no Missouri law to apply to this class of cases, the court 
interpreted the ordinance as it appeared to intend and as the 
Illinois court construed it. Governor St. Clair wrote Presi- 
dent Washington, June 11, 1794, that "the anti-slavery 
clause of this Ordinance did not go to the emancipation of 
the slaves they [the people of the Territory] were in posses- 
sion of and had obtained under the laws by which they had 
formerly been governed, but was intended simply to prevent 
the introduction of others. In this construction I hope the 
intentions of Congress have not been misunderstood, and 
the apprehensions of the people were quieted by it." 31 The 
Illinois constitution of 1818 allowed indentures of negroes 
for terms of years, permitting those bound under previous 
law9 to be held till their terms had expired. The children 
subsequently born to these were to be free at twenty-one if 
males and at eighteen if females. 82 The courts of Illinois 

30 David v. Evans, 18 Mo., 249. The origin of a suit for freedom 
seemingly annulled a contract of sale of slaves. The administrator 
of the estate of Therese C. Chouteau obtained the following order 
of court in 1843 : " Pierre Rose having commenced a suit for free- 
dom was not offered for sale,— that Charlotte, [and] Victonne . . . 
were sold to Kenneth Mackenzie, and Antoine to Henry Chouteau, 
but after the sale and before payment was made . . . said Charlotte 
instituted a suit to establish her right to freedom and that of her 
children . . and in consequence the said Mackenzie and Chouteau 
refuse to pay the sums bid by them for the slaves aforesaid, where- 
upon the court . . . order that the said Administrator do cause 
defense to be made against the claims set up by the said P.erre Rose 
and Charlotte 7 (MS Probate Records, St. Louis, Estate no. 1745. 

Pa l^\!f^liy^. Cair Papers. The Life and Public 
Services of Arthur St. Clair, vol. 11, p. 1/6. 
32 Poore, vol. i, p. 445, art. vi, sees. 2, 3- 



2l6 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

for years permitted long-term indentures which were virtual 
slavery. 38 

The Missouri interpretation of the Ordinance of 1787 was 
in principle consistent until overturned by the Dred Scott 
opinion. In 1827 a negro child who had been born in 
Illinois after 1787 was declared to be free. 34 The follow- 
ing year it was held that the ordinance was " intended as a 
fundamental law, for those who may choose to live under 
it, rather than as a penal statute to be construed by the 
letter against those who may wish to pass their slaves 
through the country." A permanent residence was there- 
fore held to work emancipation, as the court further de- 
clared that " any sort of residence contrived or permitted by 
the legal owner ... in order to defeat or avoid the ordi- 
nance, and thereby introduce slavery de facto, would doubt- 
less entitle a slave to freedom." 35 The court perhaps based 
this rendering on the constitution of Illinois of 1818 which 
read : " No person bound to labor in any other State shall 
be hired to labor in this State, except within the tract re- 
served for the saltworks near Shawneetoun ;, nor even at 
that place for a longer period than one year at any one time ; 
nor shall it be allowed after the year 1825. Any violation 
of this article shall effect the emancipation of such person 
from his obligation to service." 36 In 1830 a case was de- 
cided which definitely laid down the principle that a slave 
might be hired out in Illinois for at least two years without 
working his freedom, but that if the owner intended to re- 
side in Illinois and so resided with his slaves they would 

33 Harris, pp. 7-14. The interpretation of the Illinois courts is 
treated by Harris in ch. viii. He found instances in which negroes 
bound themselves to service for thirty-five, forty-nine, and even 
ninety-nine years. They were often made to believe that they were 
really slaves under the law. 

34 Merry v. Tiffin and Menard, 1 Mo., 520. If slaves were brought 
from Canada and were not lawfully held as slaves there, they could 
not be so held in Missouri (Charlotte v. Chouteau, 21 Mo., 590). 

35 La Grange v. Chouteau, 2 Mo., 19. But it was also here held 
that if an owner resided in Illinois and chose to employ his slave 
on a Missouri boat which touched at Illinois ports, he was in no 
way seeking to engraft slavery on that State. 

36 Art. vi, sec. 2. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 2\J 

become free. 37 These decisions were used as precedents, 
and this idea of the Ordinance of 1787 was held until over- 
turned in 1852. 38 A case very similar to that of Dr. Emer- 
son and his man Dred Scott was already on record. An 
army officer named Walker in 1836 actually forfeited his 
slave by virtue of the ordinance by taking her as a servant 
into the Northwest Territory for a number of years. 39 

Consequently, when the Dred Scott case was taken to the 
Missouri supreme court on a writ of error from the St. 
Louis district court, the whole mass of preceding decisions 
was swept away. The court held that " the voluntary re- 
moval of a slave by his master to a State, Territory, or 
country in which slavery is prohibited, with a view to reside 
there, does not entitle the slave to sue for his freedom, in 
the courts of this State." 40 After 1852 this principle was 
followed to the letter. 41 

37 Vincent v. Duncan, 2 Mo., 174. But in Ralph v. Duncan it was 
held that a master by permitting his slave to hire himself out in 
Illinois offended against the ordinance as much as though taking 
the slave there himself (3 Mo., 139). 

38 In Theodeste v. Chouteau it was decided that the ordinance did 
not impair any rights then existing, and that negroes born and held 
as slaves before its passage were not entitled to freedom under it 
(2 Mo., 116). In Ralph v. Duncan the court limited the force of 
the ordinance to the time when Congress admitted Illinois as a State 
(3 Mo., 139). In Chouteau v. Pierre the ordinance was held not to 
be in force until the western posts were evacuated by the British 
under the Treaty of 1794, in districts controlled by such posts (9 
Mo., 3). J. P. Dunn outlines several of these Missouri slave cases 
(Indiana: A Redemption from Slavery, ch. vi). In some of these 
cases the court was somewhat exacting of the slave-owner. In one 
instance it was declared that if he intended leaving Illinois but hired 
out his slave for "a day or two" for pay, the slave was entitled to 
freedom (Julia v. McKenney, 3 Mo., 193)- In Nat v. Ruddle a 
slave was declared to be free if he was taken by his master to work 
in Illinois, but if he ran away from Missouri to his master in Illinois 
or went to visit him there and was allowed by him to work, he 
would not be free (3 Mo., 282). On this point see also Whinncy v. 
Whitesides, 1 Mo., 334, Milly v. Smith, 2 Mo., 32, and Wilson v. 
Melvin, 4 Mo., 592. 

S9 Rachel v. Walker, 4 Mo., 3S0. 

4° Scott (a man of color) v. Emerson, 15 Mo., 576. The lower 
decision was reversed. Judge Ryland concurred with Judge Scott 
in the opinion, Judge Gamble dissented For a history of the case 
see the Federal decision in Howard, vol. xix, p. 303- The local sit- 
uation is briefly discussed by F. T Hill p. 244 W« 
the subject is treated from different angles by E. W. R. Ewing, lhe 



2l8 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

This view of the court aroused immediate indignation. 
Missouri had been liberal toward the slave seeking release 
from unlawful bondage. Senator Benton always took great 
pride in this fact, and claimed that negroes preferred to be 
tried in Missouri and Kentucky rather than in the free 
States north of the Ohio. 42 Senator Breese of Illinois 
admitted in 1848 that " in all his observation and experience 
... he had discovered that the courts of the slave States 
had been much more liberal in their adjudications upon the 
question of slavery than the free States. The courts of one 
of them (Illinois) has uniformly decided cases against the 
right of freedom claimed by persons held in bondage under 
a modified form of servitude recognized by its old constitu- 
tion. In precisely similar cases the courts of Kentucky and 
Missouri . . . decided in favor of the rights of freedom." 43 

The abandonment of this liberal policy was clearly recog- 
nized at the time. The Missouri chief justice in his minority 
opinion said, " I regard the question as conclusively settled 
by repeated adjudications of this court." 44 In 1856 Justices 
Curtis and McLean of the Federal Supreme Court enlarged 
upon this complete reversal of precedent by the Missouri 
court in their individual opinions. 45 The majority of the 
Missouri court admitted that precedent was against them, 
but claimed that a higher law demanded that abolition be 

Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Case, and by T. H. 
Benton, Historical and Legal Examination of the Dred Scott Case. 
Both of these are bitterly partisan. 

41 For example, see Sylvia v. Kirby, 17 Mo., 434. 

42 Benton, Historical and Legal Examination of the Dred Scott 
Case, pp. 44-45, note. 

43 Benton, Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, vol. xvi, p. 
226. Breese delivered this speech on July 24, 1848. 

44 15 Mo., 576. Chief Justice Gamble continued : " I would not 
feel myself any more at liberty to overthrow them [former deci- 
sions], than I would any other series of decisions by which the law 
of any other question was settled. There is with me nothing in the 
law relating to slavery which distinguishes it from the law on any 
other subject." 

45 Justice Curtis's opinion may be found in Dred Scott v. Sand- 
ford (Lawyers' Co-operative edition, Supreme Court Reports, vol. 
xv, pp. 767-795); and Justice McLean's (ibid., pp. 752-767). The 
subject of the reversal of precedent by the Missouri court is treated 
in the Thirteenth Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery 
Society, p. 39 (report for 1853). 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 2 1 9 

rebuked and the institution of slavery in the State be con- 
served. " Cases of this sort are not strangers in our 
courts," reads their opinion. "Persons have been fre- 
quently here adjudged to be entitled to their freedom, on the 
ground that their masters held them in slavery in Territories 
or States in which that institution is prohibited ... on the 
ground it would seem, that it was the duty of the courts of 
this State to carry into effect the constitution and laws of 
other States and Territories regardless of the rights, the 
policy, or the institutions of the people of this State . . . 
times are not as they were when the former decisions on 
the subject were made. Since then, not only individuals 
but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit 
in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the 
pursuit of measures whose inevitable consequence must be 
the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under 
such circumstances, it does not behove the State of Missouri 
to show the least countenance to any measures which might 
gratify this spirit." 46 

To this open acknowledgment of the influence of the polit- 
ical heat of the time on the decision there is the following 
answer from Chief Justice Gamble: "There is nothing 
with me in the law relating to slavery which distinguishes 
it from the law on any other subject, or allows any more 
accommodation to the temporary public excitements which 
are gathered about it." 47 The Missouri court decided the 
Dred Scott case in 1852. Benton had fought for and lost 
his reelection to the United States Senate in 1849-51. 
Party feeling was extremely bitter, and the slavery issue 
divided Democrats and Whigs alike. The court recognized 
this "dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery." To such 
political forces one must look for the inspiration of the then 
novel decision in Scott against Emerson. 

Two motives entered into the act of liberating a slave- 
financial consideration, and sentiment. In many cases pure 
sentiment was the moving force. Often it was mere barter 



* 6 Scott (a man of color) v. Emerson, 15 Mo., 5/6. 
« Ibid. 



220 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

in which the slave or his friends or relatives bought his 
freedom. This resulted in many free negroes temporarily 
owning slaves — parents their children, a husband his wife — 
between the time of purchase and the date of manumis- 
sion. 48 In many cases the elements of sentiment and cash 
both entered, 49 while the force of sentiment alone un- 
doubtedly moved other emancipators. 50 Colored mistresses 
are known to have been freed by their owners, a familiar 
case being that of J. Clamorgan who in 1809 manumitted 
two such negresses who were mothers of his children. 51 
Many slaves were freed by will. Some of these were re- 
quired to reimburse the heirs of the estate for their loss by 
such manumission, while a few were allowed to pay for their 
freedom in installments. 52 

48 For examples of the holding of slaves by free negroes, see p. 
63 above. 

49 The following is an illustration : " Know all men by these 
presents that I William Howard . . . do, for and in consideration 
of her former good qualities, correct deportment and faithful 
services to me, together with the further consideration of Tu Hun- 
dred Dollars to me in hand paid . . ." set free the slave under con- 
sideration. Granted in the St. Louis Circuit Court, December 16, 
1843. In the possession of W. C. Breckenridge. Paper no. 208. 

50 As is the case today, the negro was attached to his old home 
and master. Some freed slaves preferred to remain with the erst- 
while owner. The following proves this point : " Said Slaves thus 
manumitted . . . are so to remain without hindrance or molestation, 
and that at the date of my death, are to work and labor for them- 
selves, and not to look to my estate for support. . . . That said 
slaves have been well and truly provided whilst in servitude, and 
that in consideration of my affection for them I will provide for 
them meat and drink and suitable wearing apparel. And that Said 
Slaves thus emancipated must look in future to themselves for 
support. . . . But whilst they remain with me, they must be subject 
to my control and direction" (MS. Deed of Henry Dearing, dated 
December 17, 1855, St. Louis Court House Papers, Missouri His- 
torical Society). 

51 MS. Records of St. Louis, vol. B, pp. 368-372, under date of 
September 12. 

52 " Whereas Beverley Allen deceased by his will, directed that 
his slave Joe should be emancipated upon his paying Five Hundred 
Dollars and the said Joe not being able to pay that sum at one time 
We are willing to allow a specified time for the payment in install- 
ments." Joe was to pay $50 when the papers were given him and 
the same amount on January 1, 1847, and each four months there- 
after till the total was paid. " And if the undersigned Penelope 
Allen should also receive from the hire of the said Joe or he 
should otherwise pay to her the sum of Ten dollars per month until 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 221 

Accounts are on record of most heroic and pathetic 
sacrifices on the part of relatives to liberate slaves. That of 
George Kibby of St. Louis and his wife Susan is very 
instructive. In 1853 Kibby entered into a contract with 
Henry C. Hart and his wife Elizabeth L. Hart to purchase 
their negress named Susan, whom he wished to marry. The 
price was to be eight hundred dollars. The contract is de- 
void of all sentiment and is as coolly commercial as though 
merchandise was the subject under consideration. Kibby had 
but two hundred dollars to pay down. He was to pay the 
remainder in three yearly installments, and upon the fulfil- 
ment of the contract Susan was to receive her freedom. In 
the meantime Kibby was to take possession of Susan under 
the following conditions : " Provided however said Kibby 
shall furnish such security as may be required by the proper 
authorities, to such bond as may be required for completing 
such emancipation, so as to absolve . . . Hart and wife from 
all liability for the future support and maintainance of said 
Susan and her increase. This obligation to be null and void 
on the part of said Hart and wife, if said Kibby shall fail 
for the period of one month, after the same shall become 
due and payable, to pay to said Hart and wife said sums of 
money as hereinbefore specified, or the annual thereon, and 
in the event of such failure, all of the sum or sums of money 
whether principal or interest, which may have been paid by 
the said Kibby shall be forfeited, and said Kibby shall re- 
store to said Hart and wife said negro girl Susan and such 
child or children as she may then have, such payments being 
hereby set off against the hire of said Susan, who is this day 
delivered into the possession of said Kibby. And said Kibby 
hereby binds himself to pay said sums of money as herein- 
before specified, and is not to be absolved therefrom on 
the death of said Susan, or any other contingency or plea 
whatever. He also binds himself to keep at his own ex- 
pense a satisfactory policy of insurance on t he life of sa id 

T • , „„„, » w ,c naiH he was to receive his freedom (MS. Pro- 
"coTs o" a !. P Lou,-s? Estate no. ,068, paper filed September 

18, 1846). 



222 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

Susan, for the portion of her price remaining unpaid, pay- 
able to T. J. Brent trustee for Mrs. E. L. Hart, and that 
said Susan shall be kept and remain in this County, until the 
full and complete execution of this contract." 

Attached to the back of this contract are the receipts for 
the installments. The first reads thus : " Received of 
George Kibby one mule of the value of sixty five dollars on 
within contract Feb. 1st, 1854, H. C. Hart." The fifth and 
last payment was made on December 3, 1855 — two years 
lacking six days following the date of the contract. Ac- 
companying the contract is the deed of manumission of 
Susan, likewise dated December 3. 53 Thus Kibby fulfilled 
his bargain in less than the time allowed him. 

Cases can be found where slaves directly purchased their 
own freedom. One deed reads as follows : " For and in 
consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars, I have this 
day bargained and confirmed my right title interest and 
claim in and to a certain Negro Slave named Jackson . . . 
the said Sale being made unto Jackson himself with the in- 
tent . . . that the said slave shall henceforth be a free man." 54 
As to the nature of the transaction, most deeds of manu- 
mission were mere quit-claim contracts, while others seem 
to have been a guarantee of the grantor. The following 
was evidently such: "I Benjamin J. Vancourt . . . for a 
good and valuable consideration have emancipated . . . My 
Slave Dolly Maria . . . She . . . being entitled as against me 
and my heirs, . . . and against all persons whomsoever claim- 
ing by through or under me to all the rights privileges & 
immunities belonging to Free persons of color." 55 This 

53 MS. original in the St. Louis Court House Papers at the Mis- 
souri Historical Society. 

54 MS. deed signed by James W. Scott, November 27, 1854 (in 
ibid.). One free negro of St. Louis, Jerry Duncan, was quite for- 
tunate in emancipating his family. After buying the freedom of his 
wife and child, he purchased a home in the city. Later the police 
found his house filled with stolen goods. His family was then 
thought to have been purchased by dishonest means (Daily Evening 
Gazette, July 29, 1841). 

55 Filed November 20, 1846, no. 292. In the collection of Mr. W. 
C. Breckenridge. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 223 

provision, however, may have been a mere precaution to 
prevent the heirs from causing the slave in question future 
trouble. 

At times the General Assembly by special act manumitted 
negroes. Two slaves were thus freed by the legislature in 
February, 1843, one in Jefferson and the other in Callaway 
County. In both cases the bill was " read the first time, rule 
suspended, read the second time, considered as engrossed, 
read the third time and passed." There seems to have been 
no opposition to these acts. " Sundry citizens of Callaway 
county" even petitioned in the one case in favor of the 
negroes under consideration. 68 

The actual number of slaves passing over into the class of 
free negroes can be learned with accuracy in so far as the 
circuit court records are complete, as all deeds of manu- 
mission were granted by these courts. 57 The census returns 
give little aid in calculating totals, as the free negroes are 
not always listed in the returns. The free black also went 
from one county to another, and so the increase per county 
is difficult to find. The two motives leading to manumission 
— sentiment and money — are so inextricably merged that it 
is doubtful whether the conclusions drawn from such figures 
would throw much light on the sentiment of the State rela- 
tive to the subject of emancipation. 

The number of slaves given their freedom from year to 
year was not great except in St. Louis. For the ten years 
between January I, 1851, and January 1, 1861, but a single 
slave was freed in the Howard County circuit court. 58 In 

56 Senate Journal, 12th Ass., 1st Sess., p. 344; House Journal, 12th 
Ass., 1st Sess., p. 253. 

57 " Any person may emancipate his or her slave, by last will, or 
any other instrument in writing under hand and seal attested by two 
witnesses, and approved in the circuit court of the County, where 
he or she resides, or acknowledged by the party in the same court 
(Revised Statutes, 1835, P- S81, art. ii, sec. 1). The later revisions 
follow this form. 

58 MS. Circuit Court Records, Howard County, Book II, p. 174- 
In examining these records the present writer in some cases covered 
a series of years and in other cases took years widely separated in 
order that a fair impression might be gained. The volumes were 
carefully gone over, indexes and digests not being relied upon. The 



224 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

the adjoining county of Boone but eight were liberated in 
these same ten years, 59 while to the southwest in Henry 
County only two were manumitted. 60 In the prosperous 
southwest Missouri county of Greene not a single slave was 
given freedom in the circuit court in the sixteen years pre- 
ceding the Civil War — 1845 to 1861. 61 The old Mississippi 
River county of Cape Girardeau in the southeastern part of 
the State witnessed no manumissions in the years 1837, 
1844, 1850, and 1 85 1 ; there were four in 1858, and none in 
1859. 62 

In St. Louis County there was an entirely different situa- 
tion. From the early days slaves were steadily and increas- 
ingly liberated. In 1830 four were manumitted, in 1831 
three, in 1832 twelve, and in 1833 three. 63 Even in the years 
1836 and 1837, while Congress was being thrown into a 
furor by abolition activity, twenty-eight were liberated. 64 In 
the year 1855, while the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and the 
settlement of Kansas were forcing the State into a fever of 
excitement, no less than forty-nine slaves received their 
freedom before the circuit court at St. Louis. Thirty-nine 
persons manumitted these forty-nine negroes. 65 In 1858 
forty-nine slaves were liberated by nineteen different 
owners. 66 

Evidently many free blacks moved from county to county 
or else the natural increase of the free negro was large. Al- 

volumes covering the earlier period in Howard County were also 
examined. The same result was found. For the years 1835-37 no 
manumissions were recorded (ibid., Books 5, 6). 

59 MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book E, pp. 451, 
470-480, 510; Book F, pp. 195, 429; Book G, p. 92; Book H, pp. 66, 98. 

60 MS. Circuit Court Records, Henry County, Book B, pp. 49, 99. 

61 MS. Circuit Court Records, Greene County, Books C, Dsr,Djr,E. 

62 MS. Circuit Court Records, Cape Girardeau County, Book J, 
p. 79- 

63 MS. Circuit Court Records, St. Louis, vol. 6, pp. 4, 101, 156, 
197, 221, 276, 316, 317, 323, 340, 351, 338, 393, 492. 

64 Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 7, 13, 36, 46, 52, 96, 99, 109, 128, 130, 139, 144-145, 
189, 194, 195-196, 218, 220, 240, 276, 272, 367, 421. 

65 MS. Duplicate Papers in the Missouri Historical Society re- 
ceived from the Clerk of the St. Louis Circuit Court. 

66 MS. Circuit Court Records, St. Louis, vol. 27, pp. 6, 179; vol. 
28, pp. 198, 231, 232, 249, 279. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 22 5 

though but eight were freed in Boone County between 1851 
and 1 861, the free negroes there increased from 13 in 1850 
to 69 in i860, and Howard County, while manumitting but 
a single slave in these ten years, increased her free colored 
population from 40 to 71. No slaves were liberated in 
Greene County between 1845 and J 86i, nevertheless the free 
blacks of the county increased from 7 in 1850 to 12 in i860. 
The gain of St. Louis County, however, was consistent with 
her numerous liberations, increasing from 1470 in 1850 to 
2139 in i860. 67 

The census returns, both state and Federal, contain so 
many omissions, especially in the free negro column, that 
little can be gained from comparisons of the relative growth 
of the slaves and the free blacks. Moreover, the state census 
returns do not harmonize with the Federal. For Missouri 
as a whole the relative gains of the three classes, whites, 
slaves, and free colored, are as follows according to the 
Federal census returns: — 68 

1820 

Whites 54,903 

Slaves 9,797 

Free Negroes.. 376 

From the above figures it appears that the free negroes 
and the slaves continued at about the same ratio, while both 
were outstripped by the whites. Law and sentiment kept 
the number of free blacks from being swelled from without, 
but slave accessions were not restricted. Would the free 
negro class tend naturally to increase as fast as the slaves? 
To answer this question a detailed study of the life of the 
free colored as well as of that of the slave would be neces- 
sary, and even if such a study should be made, it would be 
denied by many that the birthrate of the despised free negro 
was governed by any economic law. 



1830 


1840 


1850 


i860 


115,364 


322,295 


592,004 


1,063,489 


25,091 


57,891 


87,422 


114,931 


569 


1,478 


2,6l8 


3,572 



« Seventh Federal Census, pp. 654-655 ; Eighth Federal Census, 
Population, p. 275. 

68 Fourth Federal Census, p. 40; Fifth Federal Census, pp. 38, 
40-41; Sixth Federal Census, p. 418; Seventh Federal Census, p. 
655; Eighth Federal Census, Population, pp. 275-283. 



is 



226 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

The various portions of the State differed in sentiment as 
in interest. Outside of St. Louis County the slaves increased 
faster than the free negroes. St. Louis was a city of one 
hundred and sixty thousand inhabitants in i860, of whom 
sixty per cent were foreign born. 69 The rural sections of 
the State looked askance at the liberal, antislavery, com- 
mercial spirit of the metropolis. The business interests of 
the city blamed slavery for keeping free labor from the 
State. The German element was strongly nationalistic and 
antislavery in feeling. As a consequence St. Louis County 
differed from the State as a whole. The Federal census 
reports for the county are as follows : — 70 

1820 1840 1850 i860 

Whites 8,253 30,036 99,097 182,597 

Slaves 1,810 4,631 5,967 3,825 

Free Negroes 225 706 1,470 2,139 

The city of St. Louis contained more free negroes than 
slaves. In i860 its population was divided as follows: — 71 

Whites 157,476 

Slaves 1,542 

Free Negroes 1,755 

The increase of the free colored population was more rapid 
than that of the slaves. The cause of this lies not only in the 
fact that the people of St. Louis perhaps favored the freeing 
of the blacks more than did the State at large, but also in the 
fact that the great commerce of the city and its growing 
industry offered greater opportunities for labor than did the 

69 Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. xxxi. The population was 
160,773. Of these, 96,086 were foreign born — 50,510 of them Ger- 
mans, 29,926 Irish, and 5513 English. 

70 See note 68. Scharf states that of the 1259 free blacks in the 
city of St. Louis in 1851 over one half, or 684, were in the city 
"in violation of the law" or without a license (vol. ii, p. 1020). 
Scharf's figures are far below those of the Federal census. He 
gives a number of manumissions in vol. i, p. 305, note. Free negro 
licenses were granted by the county courts. The MS. County Court 
Records of St. Louis contain many such records of licenses. In the 
year 1835 one hundred and forty-two were licensed (vol. i, pp. 
455-459, 461-462, 463-464). 

71 Eighth Federal Census, Population, p. 297. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 227 

interior of the State. The negro when released from his 
bonds has tended to drift cityward, and such must have been 
the case with the free negro before the Civil War. In ad- 
dition the antislavery views of so many of the people of the 
city might naturally attract the free black to a congenial 
environment. 

From the foregoing pages it is evident that the freeing of 
the slave was tolerated but not welcomed in Missouri. The 
law provided that it should be done only at the risk of the 
owner, and the free negroes were looked upon with distrust. 
This contempt for and fear of the free black was the chief 
reason for the limited number of manumissions in all of the 
Southern States. 

It is not the purpose of this study to discuss the free negro 
except where such a treatment affects the slavery system, 
yet the movement to colonize the free blacks is closely related 
to the slave in that the fear and dislike of the free colored 
population often prevented the manumitting of the bond- 
man. Colonization in Africa by American negroes was a 
definite program favored by the slaveholders of the South 
and the philanthropists of the North as a means of ridding 
the country of free negroes. The organized movement had 
hearty support from the second decade of the nineteenth 
century till long after the Civil War. James Madison and 
Henry Clay were early presidents of the national society. 
It was recognized as a slaveholders' movement. 

The Missouri society was late in its origin and never de- 
veloped to great proportions. Even Arkansas seems to have 
supported the movement with greater ardor than did her 
neighbor to the north. Missouri contained few free colored 
persons, and the economic burden of slaveholding, if such a 
burden there was, seems not to have been generally felt at 
the time. The first colonization society of the State was the 
"Auxilliary Society of St. Louis," which was founded about 
1827. In this year William Carr Lane was president. James 
H. Peck, Governor Cole of Illinois, George Thompkins, 



228 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

and William S. Carr vice-presidents, T. Spalding and D. 
Hough secretaries, and Aaron Phule treasurer. 72 In 1832 
this was as yet the only society in the State, and it still had 
the same officers. 73 The legislature gave the movement at 
least indirect support in resolutions passed in 1829 which 
declared unconstitutional the action of Congress in appro- 
priating funds for the use of the national society. 74 

The churches pushed the work, and the St. Louis society 
often met under the auspices of the Methodists. 75 Indeed, 
the Missouri Conference of that body in 1835 put itself on 
record as being enthusiastic over the subject of colonization: 
" Resolved, That we highly approve of the Colonization 
enterprise as conducted by the American Colonization So- 
ciety; we will use our influence and reasonable endeavors 
to promote its interests, and we recommend its claims to the 
people among whom we may be appointed to labor." 76 Other 
churches were also interested. In 1846 " Reverend W. Pat- 
ton's church " of Fayette sent $7.50 to the national society, 77 
while two years before the Reverend A. Bullard had enclosed 
$66 to aid a colonist. 78 The Unitarian church of St. Louis 
raised $150 for the society at a meeting in 1849. 79 

72 Tenth Annual Report (1827) of the American Society for Colo- 
nizing The Free People of Color of the United States, app., p. 79. 
This is the first notice the present writer found of the society in 
Missouri. Scharf claims that the St. Louis society was founded in 
March, 1825, in the Methodist Church, and permanently organized 
in 1828 (vol. ii, p. 1757). But the above reference proves that it 
was officially recognized at least a year before this latter date. 

73 Fifteenth Report, American Colonization Society, p. 63. 

74 Session Laws, 1828, p. 89. 

75 " I will attend to paying up the Sum you direct for the Coloni- 
zation Society," wrote the Reverend Joseph Edmundson to a fellow 
pastor in 1831. " It meets on next Monday night in the Methodist 
church" (Edmundson to Rev. J. R. Greene, May 18, in M. Greene, 
Life and Writings of Reverend Jesse R. Greene, pp. 70-71). 

76 Resolutions of the Methodist Episcopal Annual Conference, 
1835 (Daily Evening Herald, October 1, 1835). 

77 The African Repository and Colonial Journal, June, 1846 (vol. 
xxii, p. 199). 

78 Ibid., September, 1844 (vol. xx, p. 288). 

79 C. C. Eliot, p. 139. There is found in Scharf the statement that 
the Young Men's Colonization Society met in the Unitarian Church 
of St. Louis on January II, 1848, its pastor, Dr. Eliot, being presi- 
dent (vol. ii, p. 1757). 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 229 

The Missouri State Colonization Society was organized in 
1839 with Beverley Allen as president. 80 This association 
evidently prospered, for in 1845 its "Agent," the Reverend 
Robert S. Finley, sent $50 to the organ of the national 
society, the Repository. 81 It even advocated the raising of 
$1000 in the State with which to cooperate with the Illinois 
society in sending a packet twice a year to Liberia. 82 During 
that decade there were numerous signs of active interest. 
Public meetings were held, and colonial literature was sent 
to the clergymen of the State, 83 but whatever may have been 
the activity of the society the number of negroes sent from 
Missouri to Liberia was not great. Up to 1851 only 21 
blacks had been sent to Africa from the State out of a total 
of 61 16 sent from the United States. 84 Within the next five 
years Missouri sent 62 more. 85 

An illustration of the manner in which a local society was 
formed and the real motives behind the movement can be 
gained from the contemporary account of the genesis of the 
Cole County society. On November 17, 1845, a gathering 
was addressed in the Jefferson City Methodist church by 
the state colonization agent, the Reverend R. S. Finley. 
Officers were elected, and the society adjourned to meet in 
the Capitol on the following evening. 86 The state constitu- 
tional convention was in session at Jefferson City at the time, 
and many of its members were present at this second meet- 
ing. Colonel James Young of Callaway County was made 

80 Scharf, vol. ii. p. 1757. 

81 African Repository, April, 1845 (vol. xxi, p. 256). 

82 R. S. Finley, " Circular Appealing for Aid for Colonizing Free 
Negroes in Liberia," in Journal of the Illinois State Historical So- 
ciety, vol. iii, p. 95. 

83 Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the American Colonization 
Society, p. 10. In 1851 the society was active. It had organized a 
movement to memorialize the legislature on the subject of coloniza- 
tion (Thirty-Fourth Report, p. 17). 

84 Thirty- Fourth Annual Report of the American Colonization 
Society, p. 84. Kentucky had sent 225 and Tennessee 177 in these 
years (ibid.). . 

85 Fortieth Annual Report of the American Colonization Society, 
p. 16. During the year 1856 the Missouri society had remitted $313-48 
to the treasurer of the national society (ibid., p. 21). 

86 Jefferson Inquirer, November 19, 1845. 



23O SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

chairman and General Aaron Finch of Dade County secre- 
tary. Colonel Young offered a resolution in favor of the 
society and its work, and recommended the movement to 
the people of the State. This resolution was " unanimously 
adopted." General Finch then made a speech in which he 
lauded the society. He urged that the work of colonizing 
Africa with these negroes should be vigorously pushed, as 
it was the only means of removing from the State the free 
blacks, who were an " injury to our country " and constantly 
" corrupt our slaves." 87 From the above account it is evi- 
dent that it was the slaveholders and not the abolitionists 
who led the movement. At the same time many radical anti- 
slavery agitators such as Frank Blair likewise advocated the 
colonization program, yet the movement was entirely distinct 
from the organized antislavery agitation. 

The policy of supporting the colonization program was 
apparently popular in the closing days of the slavery regime. 
The cautious and prominent Presbyterian clergyman, the 
Reverend N. L. Rice of the Second church of St. Louis, who 
dreaded both northern and southern agitators, wrote a series 
of public letters to the General Assembly of his church in 
1855 in which he declared that colonization alone could save 
the country from northern abolitionism and southern radi- 
calism. 88 When on January I, 1852, Captain Andrew Har- 
per of St. Charles turned his twenty-four slaves over to the 
society upon the condition " that they be immediately Colo- 
nized to Liberia," the conservative old St. Louis Republican 
declared it a " noble New Year's gift." " How can the 
affluent hope to dispense their wealth better than in gener- 
ously aiding in this effort to let the bondman go free ?" 89 

87 Jefferson Inquirer, November 22. 

88 Ten Letters on the Subject of Slavery to the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church, pamphlet, p. 6. In 1850 the Reverend 
James A. Lyon of the Westminster Presbyterian Church of St. 
Louis advocated that the legislature grant the state society $2000 
with which to plant a " Missouri Colony in Liberia." The state 
society, he claimed, was " efficient and well organized " (An Address 
on the Missionary Aspect of African Colonization, pamphlet, pp. 
20-21). 

89 Republican, January 1, 1852. These negroes all reached Liberia 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 23 I 

Even the political heat engendered by the Kansas struggle 
and the war between the Benton and anti-Benton forces 
seems to have had little effect on the popularity of coloniza- 
tion. On January 14, 1858, Frank Blair delivered in Con- 
gress an able speech in favor of a resolution introduced by 
himself which provided that territory be acquired in Central 
or South America on which to plant a colony of free negroes 
of the United States. 90 Senator Green of Missouri, a strong 
proslavery man, in a speech of May 18 on this measure 
expressed his own favorable attitude toward colonization, 
but resented Senator King's statement that Blair as a Mis- 
sourian was the logical person to push the measure. He 
declared that only " a few individuals " in the State favored 
emancipation. 01 This illustrates how easily the colonization 
movement might be confused with the active antislavery 
program. In i860 among the ninety-seven vice-presidents 
of the national society w^ 5 Edward Bates and John F. 
Darby of St. Louis, 92 showi. r that the project had able and 
influential supporters in Mis\ uri in the closing days of the 
slavery period. 

\ 

It will be the aim of the following paragraphs to depart 
entirely from the military and political affairs which en- 
gulfed Missouri from 1861 to 1865 and to outline the de- 
velopment of the movement toward emancipation. 

When Governor Jackson was driven from Jefferson City 
and the " Rebel " legislature moved to Neosho, Hamilton R. 

save two, who were beguiled by " free negroes and abolitionists " 
to stop by the wayside while en route through Pennsylvania (ibid., 
May 13, 1852). In 1844 the administrator of the estate of Thomas 
Lindsay of St. Charles sent the national society $600 " toward the 
support of eighteen persons left by him to be sent to that colony " 
(African Repository, July, 1844 [vol. xx, p. 223]). In the case of 
a negro who was freed by will on condition that he be sent to 
Liberia by the Colonization Society it was held that his manumission 
was valid only if he had the means as well as the "willingness" to 
go (Milton [colored] v. McHenry, 31 Mo., 175). 

90 Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. i, pp. 293-298. 

91 Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. iii, p. 2208. 

92 Forty-Third Annual Report of the American Colonization So- 
ciety, p. 3. 



232 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Gamble, a lifelong Whig and antislavery man, was made 
governor. His party was conservative, and hoped by gentle 
means to placate those who had believed in the " Union with 
slavery." Opposed to this party were the "Radicals" or 
" Charcoalers," headed by Charles D. Drake and General 
George R. Smith. These latter preached immediate emanci- 
pation, and accused the governor and his friends of having 
lurking proslavery sentiments. 93 

When the state convention met in March, 1861, to decide 
the relation of Missouri to the Union, Uriel Wright declared 
that emancipation meant the destruction of the agricultural 
interests of the South. 94 The majority of the committee on 
Federal relations were otherwise minded, and they main- 
tained that the interests of Missouri would suffer from the 
policy of free trade as advocated by the South. They 
condemned secession, and thought that the North could 
never be at peace with the South as a separate nation, as the 
question of fugitive slaves would force a free North to 
police her territories for a slave South. 95 The convention 
was loyal to the Union, but could not be said to be at all in 
favor of materially affecting the slavery system. 

In August, 1861, General Fremont, in command of the 
Union forces of the State, by proclamation declared the 
property of all rebels to be forfeited, and emancipated their 
slaves. But President Lincoln on New Year's day, 1862, 
modified this provision so that it applied only to those who 
had taken up arms against the United States or had aided 
her enemies. 96 

93 "Governor Gamble was then [August, 1861] a . . . pro-Slavery 
man ... he believed the people of Missouri to be pro-slavery peo- 
ple" (C. D. Drake, Union and Anti-Slavery Speeches, Delivered 
During the Rebellion, p. 348). In December General Halleck and 
Governor Gamble reprimanded Thomas C. Fletcher for saying that 
" having arms in our hands we never intended to lay them down 
while slavery existed" (Harding, p. 338). 

94 Journal and Proceedings of the Missouri State Convention, 
held at Jefferson City and St. Louis February 28 to March 22, 
1861, p. 35- 

95 Ibid., p. 35. The committee reported March 9. 

96 Paxton, p. 317. See also Switzler on this point (pp. 391-392). 
Switzler says that Fremont with his own hand liberated two slaves 
of Colonel Thomas L. Snead on September 12, 1861 (p. 390- 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 233 

When the state convention reassembled in June, 1862, 
emancipation was immediately agitated. Breckenridge for 
the committee on the constitution introduced a series of reso- 
lutions which provided for the abolition of the slavery 
clauses of the state constitution ; for the liberation of all 
slaves born in the State on and after the first of January, 
1865, when such should reach the age of twenty-five years; 
for indemnifying the masters of slaves for their losses, and 
for requiring the reporting of slave births within six months 
under a penalty of the confiscation of the slave. No slaves 
were to be imported. The proposal of the President to aid 
the State in reimbursing her slaveholders was favorably con- 
sidered. These resolutions were tabled by a vote of 52 to 
19. 97 On June 13 Governor Gamble submitted to the conven- 
tion the offer of President Lincoln of the recent congres- 
sional provision proposing to pay Missouri slave-owners in 
case of gradual emancipation. The governor, however, 
feared that the measure " would produce excitement danger- 
ous to the State," and hinted that in such a contingency the 
President would not consider the "action disrespectful" if 
the offer were rejected. The proposition was thereupon 
tabled and ordered printed. 98 Hitchcock then moved that 
the offer of the President be considered, that he be advised 
of the danger its acceptance might cause, and that he be duly 
thanked. A committee of five was appointed for this pur- 
pose. 99 

The convention was not composed entirely of kindred 
spirits. Hall immediately moved a counter-resolution de- 
claring that " the people in choosing the Convention, never 
intended or imagined that body would undertake any social 
revolution wholly unconnected with the relations between 
the State and the General Government." This resolution 



97 Journal, Appendix, and Proceedings of the Missouri State Con- 
vention, held at Jefferson City, June 2 to 14, 1862, p. 19. 

88 Ibid p 37. 

a 9 Ibid' p 40. This resolution reads: "Resolved. That ... a 
majority of this Convention have not felt authorized at this time to 
take action with respect to the delicate and grave questions of pri- 
vate right and public policy presented by said resolution. 



234 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-I865 

was rejected by a vote of 35 to 30. 100 Birch then moved 
that the President's offer be " respectfully declined." This 
was rejected by a vote of 38 to 22, whereupon Breckenridge 
moved to submit the communication of the governor, along 
with the motion of Hitchcock, to the President. This 
motion passed by a vote of 37 to 23. 101 It is evident from 
the action of this convention and from a survey of the vote 
on the various motions that the time was not yet ripe for 
radical interference with the slavery system. 102 

By 1863 a large portion of the Union element, which party 
then controlled the situation in the State, was in favor of 
emancipation. Some wished immediate and some gradual 
emancipation. Charles D. Drake said to the convention 
which he and his followers called in 1863 that in the summer 
of 1861 " a large majority — perhaps seven-eights — of them 
[the people of Missouri] then were proslavery people." But 
during the two years which followed, he claimed that the 
" sentiments of the people of Missouri in regard to the 
institution of slavery underwent a radical change." He 
added that Lincoln's offer of cooperation in reimbursing the 
slaveholders was largely responsible for this transition. 103 
This change in feeling regarding emancipation is also 
vouched for by the Reverend J. W. Massie of England, who 
was sent to the United States in 1863 by a band of four 
thousand French and English clergymen. " I was as free 
to utter my antislavery sentiments in Missouri as I had been 

100 Journal of the Missouri State Convention, 1862, pp. 45~46- 

101 Ibid., p. 46. 

102 p or an i^ea of Governor Gamble's views of the emancipation 
situation at this time see his message to the General Assembly of 
December 30, 1862 (Senate Journal, 22d Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 13-15)- 
" The General Emancipation Society of Missouri " was formed in 
April of this year (Constitution and By Laws of the General Eman- 
cipation Society of Missouri, adopted at St. Louis April 8, 1862). 
" I think," wrote Anthony Trollope in January, 1862, " there is every 
reason to believe that slavery will die out in Missouri. The insti- 
tution is not popular with the people generally and as white labor 
becomes more abundant — and before the war it was becoming more 
abundant and profitable — men recognize the fact that the white man's 
labor is more profitable" (p. 380). 

103 Speech at Jefferson City, September 1, 1863 (Drake, pp. 
348-349). 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 235 

in Connecticut. The Reverend H. Cox at whose church I 
spoke [Methodist] affirmed that such an address would not 
have passed without a mob, and the probable destruction of 
the place, only the year before." 104 

When the legislature met for the regular session of 1862- 
63, Governor Gamble submitted his message, which dealt 
largely with the negro situation. 105 On January 21 concur- 
rent resolutions were introduced in the House declaring that 
$25,000,000 would be necessary to carry emancipation into 
effect in the State and requesting that amount of Congress 
for the purpose. This was amended by various members 
to read a greater and again to read a less amount. Zerely 
moved that Missouri had no wish that the slaves when 
emancipated should remain in the State. He was declared 
out of order. On the following day the original motion 
passed by a vote of 70 to 34, nineteen members being absent 
for one cause or another. 100 In the Senate this resolution 
appeared on January 26, was likewise amended, and finally 
passed the next day, the vote being 26 to 2, four members 
not being present. 107 But as the slaves could not be liberated 
without paying their owners, the constitution of 1820 so 
providing, the legislature felt its power to be limited, and 
therefore the governor on April 15 called the convention to 
reassemble on June 15. 108 

10 * America: The Origin of her Present Conflict, p. 255. An ob- 
serving contemporary who was prominent in politics during these 
years makes the following observation as to the changing effect of 
the War on political parties: "During the preceding election [1863] 
little or nothing remained of previously existing national political 
parties. The mad torrents of civil war had swept them all away. 
New issues and new combinations, with new objects arose. ... It 
was during the judicial canvass of 1863 that the nuclei of the present 
political parties of the State were formed ; one as the ' Conserva- 
tive' and the other as the ' Radical'; and now known as the ' Demo- 
crat ' and ' Republican.' All the ante-bellum issues had gone down 
in the bloody vortex of fratricidal war. Elements hitherto antago- 
nistic, now coalesced on the living issues of an all-absorbing pres- 
ent " (Switzler, p. 446). 

105 Senate Journal, 22A Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 13-15- 

106 House Journal, 22d Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 129-1.41. 

107 Senate Journal, 22d Ass., 1st Sess., pp. 1 15-140. 

108 In his message calling the convention of 1863 Governor Gamble 
stated the position of the legislature on the subject, and also the 



236 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804.-1865 

The convention met as called. On the following day 
Smith introduced an ordinance for the " emancipation of 
slaves." 109 On June 23 Gamble resigned as governor in 
order to retain his position in the convention as chairman of 
the committee on emancipation. At the request of the con- 
vention he consented to continue as governor till the election 
of the following November. 110 He then submitted an ordi- 
nance repealing the slavery sections of the constitution; 
abolishing slavery after July 4, 1876; liberating all slaves 
thereafter brought into the State not then belonging to 
citizens of Missouri ; freeing any slaves who had been 
taken into one of the seceding States after such had passed 
the Ordinance of Secession, and declaring that the legisla- 
ture had no power to emancipate slaves without the consent 
of the owners. 111 A number of amendments were proposed 
reducing the period of servitude. These were rejected. 112 
Drake moved that all slaves over forty years of age remain 
a9 apprentices for the remainder of their lives and those 
under twelve till they were twenty-three, and that all others 
be free on July 4, 1874. 113 Broadhead amended Drake's 
proposition to read July 4, 1870, instead of 1874, and moved 
that these " apprentices " should not be sold without the 
State or to non-residents after 1870. In this form the ordi- 
nance passed by a vote of 55 to 30. 114 On July 1, 1863, 
with some slight changes it was adopted as a whole, the 
vote being 51 to 30, seven members not being present. The 
governor approved the ordinance the same day. 115 

needs of the State and what the convention was expected to accom- 
plish (Journal, Appendix, and Proceedings of the Missouri State 
Convention, held at Jefferson City, June 15 to July I, 1863, pp. 1-5). 

109 Ibid., p. 12. 

110 Ibid., pp. 24-25. Governor Gamble died in January, 1864. 

111 Journal of the Missouri State Convention, 1863, Appendix, p. 13. 

112 Ibid., Journal, pp. 28-29. Gravelley moved that the masters 
be given $300 per slave in case of emancipation. This amendment 
was tabled (ibid., p. 29). 

113 Ibid., p. 36. 

114 Ibid., p. 38. 

115 Ibid., pp. 47-48. The ordinance can be found in the Journal 
of the Convention (p. 3). It reads as follows: "Be it ordained by 
the people of the State of Missouri in convention Assembled: Sec- 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 237 

In those stormy days events took place in rapid suc- 
cession and issues developed readily. The halfway meas- 
ures of the convention in framing the ordinance displeased 
the " Radicals." Quantrell's raid on Lawrence in the late 
summer, the ill success of the state guard in maintaining 
order, and the occasional success of Confederate sym- 
pathizers aroused Drake and his followers. 116 They met in 
convention at Jefferson City on September i. Seventy-two 
counties were represented, St. Louis sending one hundred 
and six delegates, most of whom were Germans. On the 

tion 1, The 1st and 2nd clauses of the 26th section of the constitu- 
tion are hereby abrogated. Sec. 2. That slavery and involuntary 
servitude, except for the punishment of crime, shall cease to exist in 
Missouri on the 4th day of July, 1870 and all slaves within the State 
at that day are hereby declared to be free; Provided, however, That 
all persons emancipated by this ordinance shall remain under the 
controll and be subject to the authority of their late owners or 
their legal representatives, as servants, during the following period ; 
towit: Those over forty years for and during their lives; Those 
under twelve years of age until they arrive at the age of twenty- 
three years, and those of all other ages until the 4th of July, 1870. 
The persons or their legal representatives, who, up to the moment 
of the emancipation were the owners of slaves thus freed, shall, 
during the period for which the services of such freed men are 
reserved to them, have the same authority and control over said 
freed men for the purpose of receiving possession and service of 
the same, that are now held absolutely by the master in respect to 
his slave. Provided, however, That after the said 4th day of July, 
1870, no person so held to service shall be sold to a non resident 
of or removed from the State of Missouri by authority of his late 
owner or his legal representatives. Section 3. That all slaves here- 
after brought into this State and not now belonging to citizens of 
this State, shall thereupon be free. Section 4, All slaves removed 
by consent of their owners to any seceded state after the passage 
by such state of an act or ordinance of secession and hereafter 
brought into this State by their owners shall thereupon be free. Sec- 
tion 5, The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws to 
emancipate slaves without the consent of their owners. Section 6, 
After the passage of this ordinance no slave in this State shall be 
subject to State, county, or municipal taxes." 

116 On November 21, 1862, Surgeon John E. Bruere and Ferdinand 
Hess, Adjutant, Missouri State Militia, swore that Colonel Guitar, 
in command of the Union troops at Fulton, allowed twelve slaves 
working as army teamsters to be seized by their late masters (House 
Journal, 22d Ass., Adjourned Sess., App., pp. 73~74). Complaints 
were made that the "rebels" were becoming active and insulting. 
The political events of these years have been best described by 
Samuel B. Harding in his Life of George R. Smith, and in his 
" Missouri Party Struggles in the Civil War Period," in American 
Historical Association Reports, 1900, vol. i, pp. 85-103. 



238 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

opening day Drake addressed the convention. He con- 
demned Governor Gamble for seeking to betray the will of 
the people by opposing immediate emancipation. 117 This 
" Radical " or " Charcoal " convention at once showed the 
purpose of its meeting. On the opening day Lightner 
offered a resolution declaring " That Missouri requires and 
demands as indemnity for past and security for the future 
the extinction of slavery, and the disfranchisement of 
rebels." This resolution was referred to a committee. 118 
A committee of one from each county was appointed to go 
to Washington and interview the President on the subject 
of immediate emancipation. 119 The Germans of the State 
were thanked for their " undivided support and defense of 
the Government and the Constitution." " Without a dis- 
senting voice " the convention declared " that we demand a 
policy of immediate emancipation in Missouri because it is 
necessary not only to the financial success of the State and 
the prosecution of its internal improvements, but especially 
because it is essential to the security of the lives of our 
citizens." 120 

During the year 1864 emancipation was loudly advocated 
throughout the State. B. Gratz Brown of the Missouri 
Democrat was especially active both in and out of the legis- 
lature. 121 On February 15 the restrictions on legal manu- 

117 Drake, pp. 348-357- 

118 Missouri State Radical Emancipation Convention, held at Jef- 
ferson City September 1 to 3, 1863, p. 20. 

119 Drake, p. 26. This mission was a failure, as a contemporary- 
tells us. " The writer was once a member of a delegation of Mis- 
souri Charcoals that went to Washington to see the President," says 
J. F. Hume. " An hour was set for the interview, and we were 
promptly at the door of the President's chamber, when we were kept 
waiting for a considerable time. As the door opened, but before 
we could enter, out stepped a little old man who tripped away very 
lightly for one of his years. That little old man was Francis P. 
Blair, Sr., and we knew that we had been forestalled. The Presi- 
dent received us politely and patiently listened to what we had to 
say, but our mission was fruitless" (p. 162). 

120 Missouri State Radical Emancipation Convention, 1863, PP- 
27. 30-40. 

121 See his speech in the State Senate of March 8, 1864, printed in 
pamphlet form. 



MANUMISSION, COLONIZATION, EMANCIPATION 239 

mission were removed by the General Assembly. 122 But 
slavery still existed in the State, despite the hopeless condi- 
tion of the Confederacy and the abolition of the system in 
several of the Southern States through the Emancipation 
Proclamation. 123 " Slavery is not extinct. It dies slowly," 
says an item in the Annals of Platte County for May, 
1864. 12 * 

On January 6, 1865, the state convention reassembled at 
St. Louis. On January 9 Owens moved an ordinance re- 
pealing the slavery clauses of the constitution and the ordi- 
nance passed by the convention the year before. Slavery 
was to be abolished entirely. On January 11 this ordinance 
passed by a vote of 60 to 4. 12S The members voting in the 
negative were Switzler of Boone, Morton of Clay, Harris of 
Callaway, and Gilbert of Platte. Charles D. Drake was the 
warhorse of the convention. 126 After pushing through his 
ordinance, he secured the passage of a provision forbidding 
any apprenticeship of the negro, save where the laws would 
later affect individuals. 127 On April 8 the new constitution 
passed by a vote of 38 to 13, thirteen members not being 

122 Session Laws, 1863, p. 108. 

123 For examples of the vitality of slave property in the State see 
above, pp. 42-43. 

124 P. 362. 

125 Journal and Appendix of the Missouri State Convention, held 
at St. Louis January 6 to April 10, 1865, pp. 13, 26. Two members 
were absent. This ordinance reads : " Be it Enacted by the People 
of Missouri in convention assembled, That hereafter, in this state, 
there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except in 
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly con- 
victed ; and all persons held to service or labor as slaves are hereby 
declared free" (ibid., Journal, p. 281). A MS. copy written on 
parchment, perhaps the original, is in the Missouri Historical So- 
ciety. On the back in red ink is the following: "Ordinance of 
Emancipation, Filed May 14th 1865, Francis Rodman, Secretary 
of State." 

126 Switzler, who was a dissenting member of the convention, 
wrote: "Charles D. Drake was the Ajax Telamon of the Conven- 
tion, and left upon the Convention the impress of his spirit and 
ability. Owing to this fact the body was known as the ' Drake Con- 
vention ' the Constitution as the 'Drake Constitution,' and the dis- 
franchising portion of it as the 'Draconian Code'" (p. 453, note). 

127 Missouri State Convention, 1865, Journal, p. 27. The vote on 
this provision was 57 to 3, four members not being present. 



240 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

present. 128 By its provisions slavery was forbidden and the 
educational and civil position of the negro was fixed. 

While the convention was in session, the legislature was 
acting upon the Thirteenth Amendment of the Federal Con- 
stitution. A concurrent resolution which ratified the above 
amendment was passed by the House on February 9 by a 
vote of 85 to 8, thirty-nine members not being present. 129 
On February 6 it passed the Senate, the vote being 25 to 2, 
five members not being present. 130 Governor Fletcher 
signed the measure on the 10th. 131 

Thus Missouri voluntarily abolished slavery by convention 
a month before the General Assembly ratified the Thirteenth 
Amendment. The slaveholders of the State were never re- 
imbursed for their losses, but by 1865 there could have been 
few actual slaves in Missouri. The State has always been 
proud of its voluntary action in freeing the remnant of its 
black population. 

128 Missouri State Convention, 1865, Appendix, p. 255. 

129 House Journal, 23d Ass., 1st Sess., p. 300. 

130 Senate Journal, 23d Ass., 1st Sess., p. 250. 

131 Ibid., p. 303. The amendment is given in Session Laws, 1864, 
P- 134- 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following titles have been referred to in the preceding 
pages of this study : — 

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 

A. Official. 

i. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, years 1851-61, Books 
# D, E, F, G, H. 

2. Circuit Court Records, Cape Girardeau County, years 1837, 
_ 1844, 1850, 1851, 1858, 1859, Books D, F, G, H, J, K. 

3. Circuit Court Records, Greene County, years 1845-60, Books 

C, Dsr, Djr, E. 

4. Circuit Court Records, Henry County, years 1851-61, Books 

B, C. 

5. Circuit Court Records, Howard County, years 1835-37, 1851- 

61, vols. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12. 

6. Records of the St. Louis Supreme Court of Record, or Gen- 

eral Court (Territorial Court), 1812-20, 2 vols. In the 
Supreme Court Library at Jefferson City. 

7. Circuit Court Records, St. Louis County, years 1830-33, 1S36- 

37, 1855, 1858, vols. 6, 8, 27, 28. 

8. Manumission Papers from the Circuit Court of St. Louis 

County, years 1853-56. In the Missouri Historical Society. 

9. Probate Records, Boone County, Inventories, Appraisements, 

and Sales, Book B, 1854-61. 

10. Probate Records, Cape Girardeau County, Files, years 1816- 

11. Probate Records, Greene County, Inventories and Appraise- 

ments, Book A, 1857-65. 

12. Probate Records, Henry County, Appraisements, Inven- 

tories, and Sales, 1854-66. 

13. Probate Records, Lafayette County, Inventories, Sale Bills, 

etc., Books A, B, C, D, 1855-65. 

14. Probate Records, St. Louis County, Files, 1805-65. 

15. Probate Records, Saline County, Will Record, Book A, 

1837-60. Inventories, Appraisements, and Sales, Book 1, 
1855-61 ; ibid., 1861, Book 2. Files, 1840-55. Records, Book 
G, 1859-66. 

16. Census Enumeration, Cooper County, 1850, Slave Enumera- 

tion, Schedule no. 2; Social Statistics, Schedule no. 6. 
E. E. Buckner, Ass't Marshal (United States). 

17. Census Enumeration, St. Genevieve County, i860, Slave 

Enumeration, Schedule no. 2; Social Statistics, Schedule 
no. 6. F. I. Ziegler, Ass't Marshal, J. Moreau, Ass't 
Marshal. 

18. Tax Returns, Audrain County, 1837. Incomplete. 
16 241 



242 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

19. Tax Book, Boone County, i860. 

20. Assessor's Returns, Buchanan County, 1840, 1843, 1846, 1856. 

21. Tax Book, Cape Girardeau County, 1855, 1856, 1857. 

22. Tax Book, Clay County, 1858. Incomplete. 

23. Personal Assessment List, Daviess County, 1867. 

24. Tax List, Franklin County, 1823. 

25. Tax Book, Greene County, 1858, i860. 

26. Tax Book, Jackson County, i860. 

27. Assessor's Book, Henry County, 1845. 

28. Tax Book, Howard County, 1856. 

29. Assessor's List, Macon County, 1854. 

30. Tax Book, Pike County, 1854, 1859. 

31. Tax List, St. Charles County, 1815. 

32. Tax Book, or Assessment Book, St. Louis, 1829. 

33. Tax Book, St. Louis, 1842; 1843; 1845; 1848; 1850, 2 vols.; 

1852, 2 vols. ; 1857, 4 vols. ; i860, 6 vols. 

34. Records of the County Court of St. Louis, 11 vols., 1824- 

61. At the St. Louis City Hall. 

35. Records of the City of St. Louis, Vol. B, 1805-10. City Hall. 

36. Record Book of the Trustees of the City of St. Louis, 181 1- 

23. City Hall. 

37. Record of Coroners' Inquests, City of St. Louis, 1822-39. 

City Hall. 

B. Unofficial Records and Private Papers. 

1. Records of the Old Cathedral Church of St. Louis, Record 

of Baptisms, 1835-44. At the old Cathedral. 

2. Records of the Old Cathedral Church of St. Louis, Registre 

des Mariages ouverte en 1828 Clos 1839. At the old 
Cathedral. 

3. James Aull Papers, in the Collection of Messrs. E. U. Hop- 

kins and John Chamberlain, of Lexington, Missouri. 

4. The William Clark Breckenridge Collection of Manumission 

and other papers. In possession of Mr. William Clark 
Breckenridge of St. Louis. 

5. The John M. Clayton Papers. Contain Papers of the Blairs, 

Benton, etc. In the Library of Congress. 

6. The J. J. Crittenden Papers. Papers by various members of 

the Crittenden family. Many relating to Missouri. In the 
Library of Congress. 

7. The Dalton Collection. Various miscellaneous papers. In 

the Missouri Historical Society. 

8. The John F. Darby Collection, 1835-65. Papers of various 

members of the Darby family. In the Missouri Historical 
Society. 

9. The Dougherty Collection. Papers of John Dougherty and 

other members of the Dougherty family. In the Missouri 
Historical Society. 

10. The Van Buren Papers. Papers of Martin Van Buren, con- 

taining letters from Benton, the Blairs, etc. In the Library 
of Congress. 

11. The George R. Smith Papers. Valuable on local Whig and 

slavery matters. Contain letters from James S. Rollins, 
Silas H. Woodson, and other Whig leaders. The most 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 AX 

valuable collection of local political material found in the 
btate. In the Missouri Historical Society 
12. The Sublette Papers. Papers of Solomon J. Sublette and 
other members of the Sublette family. In the Missouri 
Historical Society. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS 

, Federal Publications. 

1. Poore, Benjamin Perley. The Federal and State Constitu- 

tions. 2 vols. Washington, 1877. 

2. Statutes at Large of the United States, vols, i, ii. 

3. American State Papers: Miscellaneous, vol. i; Public Lands, 

vol. iv. 

4. Adjutant General's Report of April 5, 1848, R. Jones, Adju- 

tant General, W. L. Marcy, Secretary of War. In Execu- 
tive Documents, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. viii, Doc. no. 62. 

5. Statistical View of the Population of the United States, 

1790-1830. Washington, 1835. 

6. Fourth Census of the United States. Washington, 1821. 

7. Fifth Census of the United States. Washington, 1832. 

8. Sixth Census of the United States. Washington, 1841. 

9. Seventh Census of the United States. Washington, 1853. 

10. Eighth Census of the United States. Volumes on Popula- 

tion and Agriculture. Washington, 1864. 

11. Twelfth Census of the United States. Population, vol. i. 

Washington, 1901. 

State Publications. 

1. Journals of the General Assembly of Missouri, House and 

Senate Journals, 1820-65. 45 vols. 
No complete collections. 

2. Laws of the Territory of Missouri. 2 vols. Jefferson City, 

1842. 

3. Session Laws of Missouri, 1820-65. 22 vols. 

4. Laws of a Public and General Nature of the State of Mis- 

souri, 1803-36. 2 vols. Jefferson City, 1842. 

5. Laws of the State of Missouri, Revised and Digested, r 

2 vols. St. Louis, 1825. 

6. Revised Statutes of 1835. St. Louis, 1840. 

7. Revised Statutes of 1845. 2 vols. St. Louis, 1845. 

8. Revised Statutes of 1855, compiled by C. H. Hardin. 2 vols. 

Jefferson City, 1856. 

9. Reports of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, 

1820-70. 35 vols. 

10. Report of the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State 

Missouri to the 23rd General Assembly. Jefferson City, 
1865. 

11. Journal of the Missouri State Convention, [830. Photo fac- 

simile reprint of State Law Book Co., IOOSi from the origi- 
nal printed by I. N. Henry and Co., St. Louis, ifao. 

12. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of Missouri, held 

at Jefferson City November 17, 1845. to January 14. 1846. 
Jefferson City, 1846. 



244 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

13. Journal and Proceedings of the Missouri State Convention, 

held at Jefferson City and St. Louis February 28 to March 
22, 1861. St. Louis, 1861. 

14. Journal, Appendix, and Proceedings of the Missouri State 

Convention, held at Jefferson City June 2 to 14, 1862. St. 
Louis, 1862. 

15. Journal, Appendix, and Proceedings of the Missouri State 

Convention, held at Jefferson City June 15 to July 1, 1863. 
St. Louis, 1863. 

16. Journal and Appendix of the Missouri State Convention, 

held at St. Louis January 6 to April io, 1865. St. Louis, 
1865. 

17. Adjutant General's Report, 1861. St. Louis: Leo Knapp and 

Co., 1862. 

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS OF SOURCES 

1. French, B. F. Historical Collections of Louisiana. 5 vols. 

New York, 1846-53. 

2. Margry, Pierre. Decouvertes et Etablissements Des Francais 

Dans L'ouest et dans Le Sud de L'Amerique Septentrionale 
(1614-1754). 6 vols. Paris, 1887. 

3. Paxton, William M. Annals of Platte County, Missouri. 

Kansas City, 1897. 

4. The St. Louis Directory of 1859. St. Louis: L. and A. Carr. 

1858. 

5. The St. Louis Directory of 1859. St. Louis: R. V. Kennedy. 

1859- 

6. The St. Louis Revised Ordinances for the years 1836, 1843, 
^ 1846, 1850, 1853, 1856, 1861. 

7. Charter of the City of Carondelet, Approved March 1, 1851. 

St. Louis : Missouri Republican. 1851. 

CONTEMPORARY ADDRESSES, PAMPHLETS, ETC. 

1. Benton, Thomas H. Speech Delivered at Jefferson, The 

Capitol of Missouri on the 26th. of May, 1849. Extra 
Evening Post, 1849 (St. Louis?). 

2. . Historical and Legal Examination of That Part of the 

Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States . . . 
which Declares the Unconstitutionality of the Missouri 
Compromise Act, And the Self-Extension of the Consti- 
tution to the Territories, Carrying Slavery Along with it. 
New York, 1857. 

3. Blair, Francis P., Jr. On the Subject of the Senatorial Elec- 

tion (Speech in Reply to Carr), at the Joint Session of 
the General Assembly of Missouri, Jan.?, 1855. Publisher 
not given. 

4. . On the Acquisition of Territory in Central and South 

America to be Colonized with Free Blacks, and held as 
A Dependency By the United States. House of Repre- 
sentatives, Jan. 14, 1858. Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 
1st Sess., part i, pp. 290-296, or in pamphlet form by Buell 
and Blanchard, Washington, 1858, 24 pp. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



-45 



5- — -■ The Destiny of the Races of This Continent. An 
Address delivered before the Mercantile Library Associa- 
tion of Boston, Massachusetts, On the 26 th of January, 
1859. Washington: Buell and Blanchard. 1859. 

6. Bogy, Colonel Lewis V. Speech of Colonel Lewis V. Bogy, 
the Democratic Nominee for Congress in the First Dis- 
trict. Delivered at the Rotunda [of the Court House], 
May 27, 1852. Saint Louis: St. Louis Times Office. 1852. 

7- Calhoun, J. C. To the People of the Southern States (Reply 
to Benton). Written in 1849. Publishers not given. 

8. Greeley, Horace. A History of the Struggle for Slavery 

Extension or Restriction in the United States. New York. 
1856. 

9. Green, James S. Letter to Messrs. John S. Farish, John W. 

Minor, Thomas Roberts, Wesley Burks, and other Citizens 
of Schuyler Co. Missouri, dated Washington, Dec. 10, 1849. 
16 pp. Publisher not given. 

10. Hogan, John. Thoughts about the City of St. Louis, her 

Commerce and Manufactures, railroads, etc. St. Louis : 
Republican Office. 1854. 

11. Jackson, Governor Claiborne F. Inaugural Address of, to 

the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, January 
3, 1861. Jefferson City, 1861. 

12. Lyon, Reverend James A. An Address on The Missionary 

Aspect of African Colonization. St. Louis : T. W. Ustick. 
1850. 21 pp. 

13. Palm, William. Letter to C. C. Zeigler of the Legislature, 

dated January 25, 1857. 4 pp. Publisher not given. 

14. Rice, Reverend N. L. Ten Letters on the Subject of Slavery. 

St. Louis, 1855. 

15. Rollins, James S. Speech in the Joint Session of the Legis- 

lature Feb. 2, 1855, in reply to Goode of St. Louis. Jeffer- 
son City : Lusk's Press, 1855. 

16. Shannon, President James. Address delivered before the 

Pro-Slavery Convention ... in Lexington, July 13, 1855. 
Published with the Proceedings of the Convention. 

17. Starr, Reverend Frederick ("Lynceus"). Letters for the 

People, on the Present Crisis . . . No. 1, Slavery in Mis- 
souri. [New York, 1853.] 

18. Stringfellow, Benjamin F. Negro Slavery No Evil or The 

North and the South. Published in the St. Joseph Com- 
mercial Cycle, February 2 to March 23, 1855. 

19. Waugh, Reverend Lorenzo. A Candid Statement of the 

Course Pursued by the Preachers of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church South in Trying to Establish Their New 
Organization in Missouri. Cincinnati : J. A. and U. P. 
James, 1848. 72 pp. 

REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS OF CONVENTIONS, 
CONFERENCES, AND SOCIETIES 

1. Representation and petition of the representatives elected by 
the Freemen of the territory of Louisiana 4th January, 
1805. Referred to Messrs. Eppes, Lucas, Clagett, Huger, 



246 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

Eustis, Fowler, and Bryan. Washington City : Printed by 
William Duane & Son. 1805. 30 pp. 

2. Proceedings and Resolutions of the Pro-Slavery Conven- 

tion, held at Lexington July 13 to 15, 1855. St. Louis: 
Republican Office, 1855. 
Contains also President James Shannon's Address and the 
Address to the People of the United States. 

3. Missouri State Radical Emancipation Convention, held at 

Jefferson City September 1 to 2, 1863. Missouri Democrat's 
Special Report, St. Louis, 1863. 

4. Tenth Annual Report of the American and Foreign Anti- 

Slavery Society (1850). New York, by the Society, Wm. 
Harned, Agent, 1850. Eleventh Report, ibid.; Thirteenth 
Annual Report, ibid., L. J. Bates, Agent, 1853. 

5. Reports of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 1837-61. Pub- 

lished in New York by the Society. 

6. Reports of the American Society for the Colonization of the 

Free People of Color of the United States, 1818-65. Pub- 
lished in New York by the Society. 

7. Finley, Reverend Robert S. Circular Appealing for Aid for 

Colonizing Free Negroes in Liberia [1845]. In the Jour- 
nal of the Illinois Historical Society, vol. iii, pp. 93-95- 

8. Forman, Reverend J. G. The Western Sanitary Commission. 

St. Louis, 1864. 

9. Constitution and By Laws of the General Emancipation So- 

ciety of Missouri. St. Louis: Democrat Book and Job 
Office. 1862. 

10. Debates in the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 

copal Church, During its Session in New York, May 3 to 
June 10, 1844, Geo. Peck, editor. New York, 1844. 

11. History and Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 

South ; comprehending all the Official Proceedings of the 
General Conference; The Southern Annual Conferences 
and the General Convention. Nashville : Wm. Cameron 
for the Louisville Convention of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South. 1845. 

12. Elliott, Reverend Charles. History of the Great Secession 

from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Official Northern 
account provided by the Northern Conference of 1848. 
New York: The Methodist Book Concern. 1855. 

13. Minutes of the Eleventh Session of the Missouri Annual 

Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at 
Hannibal May 6 to 10, 1858. St. Louis: R. P. Studley. 
1858. 

14. Address to the Democracy of Missouri. [St. Louis? 1850?] 

Signed by F. P. Blair and thirty-seven others. Distributed 
at 87 Second St. Publisher not given. 14 pp. In Library 
of Congress. 

15. The Address, Resolutions and Proceedings of the Democ- 

racy of St. Louis in the Rotunda of the Court House, 
January 8, 1848. St. Louis : Union Office, 1848. 

16. A Statement of Facts and A Few Suggestions in Review of 

Political Action in Missouri Demonstrating The Right of 
Admission To the Democratic National Convention. 1856. 
Publisher not given. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

NEWSPAPERS 



2 47 




stu^ T^&^USSSrj t aVC J"" referred t0 - this 
files are as follows:- °' datC ' and present locatj on of the 

Columbia 

i. 

2. 

Fayette 

Frank™* WeS ' er " M ° nitor ' ,829 ' Libra ^ ° f Congress. 

Jackson 

7. Missouri Herald, 1819-21. Library of Congress 
Je ff e 8 rso S n OU City n ^^ ** ""^ Co «-- 
9- Jeffersonian Republican, 1811-40 T ihrr.™ «< r- 

U i e ffe e r SOn ? qUi " Cr ' ^-57 LTbra^of^ngSr 6 "" 
Kansas Sf;" 011 ^"^ ^^ LibrS * «f Con^Ss. 

Liberty KanSaS Clty Star ' I9 ° 4 ' StatC HistoricaI Society. 

RichLT Stern Pi ° neer ' ** Llbrary ° f C °"^ ess - 

14. R'chrnond Weekly Mirror, 1853-58. State Historical So- 
St. Charles 

15. The Missourian, 1820-22. Library of Congress. 
M. Joseph 

l6 ' T Con|ress J ° SePh C ° mmcrcial Cjd^, 1855-56. Library of 
St. Louis 

I7> T Office a a Z t e St. Lou" * ^^ ^ ^^ **■* 

In S C n"-i L °D S En( J uir ^ 1810-25. Library of Congress 

19. The Daily Pennant, 1840. Library of Congress 

20. The Weekly Pilot, 1855. Library^? Confess 

■ ™e Missouri Reporter, 1845. Library of Congress 

« ?L C S a; y T U r ?,"• l846 " 49 o Librar y of Congresf 

23. The Daily Intelligencer, 1850-51. Library of Congress 

A rt £ ai ^ Mlss °™. *«. Library ofCongresT 

25. The Republican, Daily 1848-^0. Library of Congress and 

St. Louis Mercantile Library 
l£ S h? , W ^ ek1 ^ ^"b^ 3 ". 1852. Library of Congress. 
27. Daily Evening Herald and Commercial Advertiser 1835 

Mercantile Library. J * 

™ ? aiIy ,^,T e ! 1 > ing Gazette - 1841-42. Mercantile Library. 

29. The Mill Boy, 1844. Mercantile Library 

30. The Bulletin, 1855. Mercantile Library 



248 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

31. The Missouri Democrat, Daily, 1854-60. Mercantile Library. 

32. The Missouri Argus, 1835-39. Library of Congress. 

33. The Farmers' and Mechanics' Advocate, 1833. W. C. Breck- 

enridge Collection. 
Weston 

34. The Weston Platte Argus, 1856. Library of Congress. 

35. The William Hyde Scrapbooks of old Newspapers, Volume 

on " Early St. Louis and Missouri." W. C. Breckenridge 
Collection. 

36. The H. E. Robinson Scrapbook of old newspapers, Volume 

on " The Platte Purchase." W. C. Breckenridge Collection. 

37. The William F. Switzler Scrapbooks, 1844-60. 5 vols. Vol- 

ume 1856-57 on the American Party. State Historical 
Society. 

38. The James S. Thomas Scrapbook, from St. Louis Papers, 

vol. i (1833-59). Mercantile Library. 

OTHER PERIODICALS 

1. The African Repository and Colonial Journal, 1820-40. Johns 

Hopkins University Library. 

2. Niles' Weekly Register, 181 1-49. 

3. Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, 1836-37. Johns Hopkins Uni- 

versity Library. 

CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS, MEMOIRS, AND TRAVELS 

1. Anderson, Reverend Galusha. The Story of a Border City 

During the Civil War. Boston, 1908. 

2. Ashe, Thomas. Travels in America, Performed in 1806. New- 

buryport, 1808. 

3. Babcock, Rufus. Memoir of John Mason Peck, D. D. Phila- 

delphia, 1864. 

4. Baudissin, Graf Adelbert. Der Ansiedler im Missouri Staat. 

Iserlohn, 1864. 

5. Beecher, Reverend Edward. Narrative of Riots at Alton. Alton, 

1838. 

6. Brackenridge, H. M. Recollections of Persons and Places in 

the West. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, 1868. 

7. . Views of Louisiana. Baltimore, 1817. 

8. Brown, William B. Narrative of William B. Brown a Fugitive 

Slave. Boston, 1847. 

9. Chappell, Philip E. "A History of the Missouri River." Trans- 

actions of the Kansas State Historical Society, vol. ix (1905- 
06), pp. 237-294. 

10. Chase, Samuel P. Diary and Correspondence. Report of the 

American Historical Association, 1902, vol. ii. 

11. Father John Clark. A Memoir by "An Old Pioneer." New 

York, 1855. 

12. Darby, John F. Personal Recollections of Men and Events in 

St. Louis. St. Louis, 1880. 

13. Delaney, Lucy A. From the Darkness Cometh the Light or 

Struggles for Freedom. St. Louis: J. T. Smith, i892(?). 

14. Dimmick, Reverend Thomas. Lovejoy. An Address at the 

Church of the Unity at St. Louis, March 14, 1888. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



2 49 



IS- Doy, Dr. John. The Narrative of John Doy, of Lawrence, 
Kansas. New York, i860. 

16. Drake, Charles D. Union and Anti-Slavery Speeches, Deliv- 

ered During the Rebellion. Cincinnati, 1864. 

17. Duden, Gottfried. Bericht iiber eine Reise nach den Westlichen 

Staaten Nordamerika's und einen mehrjahrigen Aufenthalt am 
Missouri [1824-27]. Zweite Auflage. Bonn, 1834. 

18. Edwards, Richard, and Hopewell, M. Edwards's Great West 

and her Commercial Metropolis. St. Louis, [i860]. 

19. Eliot, Charlotte C. William Greenleaf Eliot. Boston and New 

York, 1904. 

20. Eliot, Reverend William G. The Story of Archer Alexander. 

Boston, 1885. 

21. Etzenhouser, Elder R. From Palmyra, N. Y., 1830 to Inde- 

pendence, Mo., 1894. Independence, Mo., 1894. 

22. Ewing, Judge R. C. History and Memoirs of the Cumberland 

Presbyterian Church in Missouri. Nashville, 1874. 

23. Flint, Reverend Timothy. The History and Geography of the 

Mississippi Valley. Two vols, in I. Cincinnati, 1832. 

24. . Recollections of the Last Ten Years ... in the Valley 

of the Mississippi. Boston, 1826. 

25. Froebel, Julius. Seven Years' Travel in Central America . . . 

and the Far West of the United States. London, 1859. 

26. Greene, Mary. Life and Writings of Reverend Jesse R. Greene. 

Lexington, Mo., 1852. 

27. Haskell, General J. G. " The Passing of Slavery in Western 

Missouri." Transactions of the Kansas State Historical So- 
ciety, vol. vii (1901-02), pp. 28-39. 

28. Hill, Reverend Timothy. " The Early History of the Pres- 

byterian Church in Missouri." American Presbyterian Quar- 
terly Review, vol. x (1861-62), pp. 94-117. 

29. . Historical Outlines of the Presbyterian Church in Mis- 
souri. A Discourse delivered at Springfield, Mo., October 13, 
1871. Kansas City, 1871. 

30. Hume, John F. The Abolitionists. New York and London, 

1905. 

31. Leftwich, Reverend William M. Martyrdom in Missouri. 2 

vols. St. Louis, 1870. 

32. Lucas, John B. C, Jr., Comp. Letters of Hon. J. B. C. Lucas 

from 1815 to 1836. St. Louis, 1905. 

33. Mackay, Charles. Life and Liberty in America. New York, 

1859. 

34. Massie, J. W. America: The Origin of her Present Conflict. 

London, 1864. 

35. Maximilian, Prince of Wied. "Travels in the Interior of 

North America, 1832-4." In R. G. Thwaites, Early Western 
Travels, vols, xxii, xxiii, xxiv. 

36. Merrick, G. B. Old Times on the Upper Mississippi [1854-63]. 

Cleveland, 1909. 

37. Napton, William B. Past and Present in Saline County, Mis- 

souri. Indianapolis and Chicago, 1910. 

38. Parker, John A. " The Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska 

Bill." National Quarterly Review, July, 1880 (no. lxxxi), 
pp. 105-118. 



250 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

39. Pittman, Captain Philip. The Present State of the European 

Settlements on the Mississippi River. Original London edi- 
tion of 1770, edited by F. H. Hodder. Cleveland, 1906. 

40. Polk, James K. The Diary of James K. Polk During His Pres- 

idency, 1845 to 1849. M. M. Quaife, editor. 4 vols. Chicago, 
1910. 

41. Post, T. A. Truman M. Post. Boston and Chicago, 1891(F). 

42. The St. Clair Papers. The Life and Public Services of Arthur 

St. Clair. Wm. H. Smith, editor. 2 vols. Cincinnati, 1882. 

43. Schoolcraft, Henry R. Travels in the Central Portions of the 

Mississippi Valley. New York, 1825. 

44. . A View of the Lead Mines of Missouri. New York, 1819. 

45. Shackelford, Thomas. " Early Recollections of Missouri." 

Missouri Historical Society Collections, vol. ii, no. 2, pp. 1-20. 

46. Stoddard, Major Amos. Sketches, Historical and Descriptive, 

of Louisiana. Philadelphia, Mathew Carey, 1812. 

47. Switzler, William F. Switzler's Illustrated History of Mis- 

souri. St. Louis, 1877. 
Much of his History was taken from his personal observations 
as a member of the legislature and as an editor. 

48. Thompson, George. Prison Life and Reflections. Hartford, 1851. 

49. Trollope, Anthony. North America. 2 vols. New York, 1862. 

50. Wetmore, Alphonso. Gazetteer of the State of Missouri. St. 

Louis, 1837. 

51. Williams, R. H. With the Border Ruffians. New York, 1907. 

52. Witten, Reverend Robert R. Pioneer Methodism in Missouri. 

[Springfield?, Mo., 1906?.] 

SECONDARY WORKS 

1. Ballagh, James C. "A History of Slavery in Virginia." J. H. 

U. Studies, extra vol. xxiv. 

2. Barns, C. R. The Commonwealth of Missouri : A Centennial 

Record. St. Louis, 1877. 
W. F. Switzler's History of Missouri appears here in its first 
edition. The Biographical section of Barns's work has been 
referred to in this study. 

3. Bassett, John S. " Slavery in the State of North Carolina." 

J. H. U. Studies, series xvii, nos. 7-8. 

4. Bek, W. G. The German Settlement Society of Philadelphia 

and Its Colony, Hermann, Missouri. Philadelphia, 1907. 

5. Brackett, Jeffrey R. " The Negro in Maryland." J. H. U. 

Studies, extra vol. vi. 

6. Breckenridge, William Clark. " Biographical Sketch of Judge 

Wilson Primm." Missouri Historical Society Collections, vol. 
iv, no. 2, pp. 127-159. 

7. Buckley, J. M. History of Methodism in the United States. 2 

vols. New York, 1898. 

8. Carr, Lucien. Missouri, A Bone of Contention (American Com- 

monwealth Series, vol. 11). 

9. Davis, W. B., and Durrie, D. S. An Illustrated History of Mis- 

souri. St. Louis, 1876. 

10. Dodd, William E. " The West and the War with Mexico." 

Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, vol. v, no. 2, 
pp. 159-173. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 5 I 

11. Dunn, J. P. Indiana: A Redemption from Slavery (American 

Commonwealth Series, vol. 12). 

12. Elliott, Reverend Charles. A History of the Methodist Epis- 

copal Church in the South-West, 1844-1864. Cincinnati, 1868. 

13. Ewing, Elbert W. R. Legal and Historical Status of the Dred 

Scott Decision. Washington, 1009. 

14. Faust, Albert B. The German Element in the United States. 

2 vols. Boston and New York, 1909. 

15. Harding, Samuel B. Life of George R. Smith, Founder of 

Sedalia, Mo. Sedalia, 1904. 

16. . " Missouri Party Struggles in the Civil War Period." 

Report of the American Historical Association, 1900, vol. i, 
pp. 85-103. 

17. Harris, Norman D. History of Negro Slavery in Illinois and 

of the Slavery Agitation in That State. Chicago, 1906. 

18. Harvey, Charles M. " Missouri." Atlantic Monthly, vol. lxxxvi, 

PP- 63-73- 

19. Helper, Hinton R. The Impending Crisis of the South. New 

York, i860. 

20. Hill, Frederick T. " Decisive Battles of the Law : Dred Scott 

v. Sanford." Harper's Monthly Magazine, vol. cxv, pp. 244- 
253- 

21. Hodder, F. H. " Genesis of the Kansas-Nebraska Act." Pro- 

ceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1912, 
pp. 69-86. 

22. Holcomb, R. I. History of Marion County, Missouri. St. Louis, 

1884. 

23. Holloway, J. N. History of Kansas from the First Explora- 

tion of the Mississippi Valley to its Admission into the Union. 
Lafayette, Ind., 1868. 

24. Von Holst, Hermann. The Constitutional and Political His- 

tory of the United States. 7 vols. Chicago, 1888. 

25. Houck, Louis. A History of Missouri. 3 vols. Chicago, 1909. 

26. Howe, Daniel Wait. " The Laws and Courts of the Northwest 

and Indiana Territories." Publications of the Indiana His- 
torical Society, vol. ii, no. I. 

27. Hurd, J. C. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United 

States. 2 vols. Boston, 1858-62. 

28. Kargau, E. D. " Missouri's German Immigration." Missouri 

Historical Society Collections, vol. ii, no. 1, pp. 23-34. 

29. Kaufmann, Wilhelm. Die Deutschen im amerikanischen Biir- 

gerkriege. Miinchen und Berlin, 191 1. 

30. Levens, H. C, and Drake, N. M. A History of Cooper County, 

Missouri. St. Louis, 1876. 

31. Linn, William A. The Story of the Mormons. New York, 

1902. 

32. McAnally, David R. History of Methodism in Missouri, 1806- 

1881. 2 vols. St. Louis, 1881. 

33. Meigs, William M. The Life of Thomas Hart Benton. Phila- 

delphia, 1004. 

34. Minick, Alice A. " The Underground Railway in Nebraska." 

Proceedings and Collections of the Nebraska State Historical 
Society, series ii, vol. 2, p. 70. 

35. Moore, Brent. A Study of the Past, the Present, and the Pos- 

sibilities of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky. Lexington, Ky., 
I905- 



252 SLAVERY IN MISSOURI, 1804-1865 

36. Ray, Perley Ormond. The Repeal of the Missouri Compro- 

mise, Its Origin and Authorship. Cleveland, 1909. 

37. Redpath, James. The Public Life of Capt. John Brown. Bos- 

ton, i860. 

38. Richardson, A. D. Beyond the Mississippi. Hartford, 1867. 

39. Scharf, J. T. History of Saint Louis City and County. 2 vols. 

Philadelphia, 1883. 

40. Shoemaker, Floyd C. The First Constitution of Missouri, A 

Study of Its Origin. Typewritten copy, 191 1. 

41. Siebert, W. H. The Underground Rail Road from Slavery to 

Freedom. New York and London, 1808. 

42. Sprague, W. B. Annals of the American Pulpit. 9 vols. New 

York, 1850-1868. 

43. Tupes, Captain Herschel. The Influence of Slavery upon 

Missouri Politics. Typewritten copy, 1910. 

44. Viles, Jonas. " Population and Extent of Settlement in Mis- 

souri before 1804." Missouri Historical Review, vol. v, no. 4, 
pp. 189-213. 

45. Woodburn, James A. " The Historical Significance of the Mis- 

souri Compromise." Report of the American Historical Asso- 
ciation, 1893, pp. 251-297. 

46. Anonymous. " The Underground Rail Road in Kansas." Kan- 

sas City Star, July 2, 1905. 

47. The History of Lafayette County, Missouri. St. Louis, 1881. 

48. The History of Clay and Platte Counties. St. Louis, 1885. 

49. The History of Lewis, Clark, Knox, and Scotland Counties, Mis- 

souri. St. Louis and Chicago, 1887. 



NDEX 



Abolition, laws against, 134; 
danger from, in Kansas, 187- 
188. 

Allen, Colonel D. C, on treat- 
ment accorded slaves, 95, 96; 
on Kansas invasions, 196. 

American Party, position of, on 
slavery, 165. 

Anderson, "Jack," fugitive slave, 
kills Seneca Diggs, 90 n. 

Anderson, Reverend Galusha, on 
tteatment of slaves, 95. 

Anderson, Reverend Richard, 
colored pastor, 85. 

Assault, criminal, by negroes, 
punishment of, 73; extent of, 
73 n. 

Assemblies of slaves, regulated, 
178. 

Atchison, Senator David R., bit- 
ter toward Benton, 151 ; on 
abolitionists in Kansas, 187- 
188. 

Aull, James, opposed to emanci- 
pation, 114-115. 

Baptism, of slaves, in St. Louis 
R. C. Cathedral, 87; effect of, 
on status of the slave, 208-209. 

Baptist Association, statement 
regarding slavery, 106. 

Baptist Church, of Liberty, 
slaves worship in, 84. 

Bates, Edward, defends Mul- 
drow, 120; vice-president of 
American Colonization Soci- 
ety, 231. 

Benton, Senator Thomas Hart, 
claims honor of placing slav- 
ery guarantee in constitution 
of 1820, in; favors emanci- 
pation, 112-113; secures Platte 
Purchase, 124-126 ; reasons for 
his defeat for senatorship, 142- 
143; his intolerance, 143; his 
strength in Missouri, 143-144; 
position on Texan Treaty, 144- 



145; on Mexican War, 144- 
145; on Compromise of 1850, 
146-147; on Oregon question, 
147-148; on congressional con- 
trol of Territories, 148; on 
slavery, 148-149; opposition to 
Calhoun, 148-150; "Jackson" 
Resolutions aimed at, 153-155; 
his "Appeal," 155-156; his 
Jefferson City speech of May 
26, 1849, 156; his "Central 
National Highway to the Pa- 
cific," 162, 189; his retirement 
from Missouri politics, 163 ; 
derides Kansas excitement in 
Missouri, 197; on Dred Scott 
case, 218 n. 

Bishop, John S., a slave-trader, 
50. 

Black Code of 1724, forbids 
trading with slaves, 65. 

Blair, Francis Preston, Sr., on 
Wilmot Proviso debate in 
Missouri, 142; on Benton's 
strength, 156-157. 

Blair, Francis Preston, Jr., on 
Kansas as a hemp country, 55 ; 
on treatment of slaves, 94; 
opposes his instructions against 
Wilmot Proviso, 142; cham- 
pions Benton, 152; agitates 
repeal of " Jackson " Resolu- 
tions, 160, 162. 

Blair, Montgomery, on Benton's 
strength, 151-152. 

Blanton, Wharton, his slave pen 
near Wright City, 52-53- 

Bogy, Colonel Lewis V., on Ben- 
ton's intolerance, 143; a can- 
didate for Congress, 161 ; op- 
posed to Benton, 161-162. 

Bond-servants, number of, in 
Missouri, 58. 

Bosley, John, encounter with 
Muldrow, 120. 

Breckinridge, J. C, vote received 
in Missouri (i860), 171. 



253 



254 



INDEX 



Brown, B. Gratz, agitates eman- 
cipation, 168; favors immedi- 
ate emancipation, 238. 

Brown, John, steals Missouri 
slaves, 204. 

Brown, William B., fugitive 
slave, on slave trade, 48, 51- 
52; on religion of slaves, 85, 
87; on labor of slaves, 87. 

Burr, James, attempts to entice 
slaves from Marion County, 
121. 

Calhoun, John C, alleged at- 
tempt to defeat Benton, 148- 
150; charge denied by, 149; his 
published works condemned by 
Benton, 149. 

Carondelet, City of, slave regu- 
lations in charter of 1851, 66. 

Carroll, Henry, on slavery senti- 
ment in Boone's Lick region, 
106. 

" Charcoal " Convention. See 
Convention, State Radical. 

Charless, Joseph, on emancipa- 
tion, 109. 

Chouteau, Pierre, favors slav- 
ery, 109. 

Clark, Professor Peter H., on 
slave trade, 52. 

Clay, " Uncle " Peter, on labor 
and treatment of slaves, 98. 

Code of 1804 (slave), formu- 
lated by Indiana^ judges, 58; 
makes slaves personal prop- 
erty, 60; trading with slaves 
forbidden, 65 ; punishment for 
crimes committed by negroes, 
71 ; for rebellion against mas- 
ter. 75 J concerning fugitives, 
174; assemblies of slaves regu- 
lated, 178. 

Coffman, John, large slaveholder, 
15. . 

Colonization, movement for, in 
Missouri, 227; genesis of Mis- 
souri society, 229-230; sup- 
port of movement in the State, 
230-231. 

Comfort, Reverend Silas, admits 
slave evidence in a church 
trial, 127. 

Congregational Church, position 
of, on slavery, 132-133. 



Constitution, of 1820, guaran- 
tees slave property, 58-59 ; reg- 
ulates punishment of slaves, 
72; regulates manumission of 
slaves, 209-210; of 1845, slav- 
ery and free negro sections of, 
136-137; defeated, 136 n. 

Convention, constitutional, of 
1820, position of, on slavery, 
103-104, 109-110; of 1845, po- 
sition of, on emancipation, 
136; on the free negro, 136- 
137- 

Convention, state, of 1861, posi- 
tion of, on emancipation, 232; 
of 1862, considers emancipa- 
tion, 233-234; of 1863, adopts 
Gradual Emancipation Ordi- 
nance, 236-237; of 1865, passes 
Emancipation Ordinance, 239- 
240. 

Convention, State Radical 
("Charcoal"), of 1863, de- 
mands immediate emancipa- 
tion, 237-238; opposes enlist- 
ment of Missouri negroes in 
other States, 206-207. 

Cotton, culture of, 26. 

Crime, among slaves, punish- 
ment of, 71-75; extent of, 72 
n., 89-90. 

Daily Evening Gazette, criticizes 
abolitionists, 122. 

Daily Evening Herald and Com- 
mercial Advertiser, decries 
emancipation movement, 116. 

Davis, Thomas T., Indiana judge, 
60 n. 

Delaney, Lucy A., negress, on 
condition of slaves, 93 ; secures 
her freedom, 213-214. 

Democratic party of Missouri, 
favors annexation of Texas, 
137-140; division of, over Ben- 
ton's "Appeal," 160-162; seeks 
reunion, 161-162. 

Doniphan, Colonel A. W., in 
Mexican War, 140. 

Doy, Dr. John, of Kansas, steals 
Missouri slaves, 204. 

Drake, Charles D., opposed to 
Benton, 150; on emancipation, 

234- 
Dred Scott case, 217-219. 



INDEX 



255 



Duden, Godfried, on condition 
of Missouri slaves, 94. 

Duggins, Dean D., on condition 
of Missouri slaves, 93. 

Education, of negroes, law of 
1825 concerning, 83; law of 
1847, 83-84. 

Eliot, Reverend William G., on 
St. Louis slave trade, 48; on 
treatment of slaves, 95 ; on the 
Lovejoy episode, 119. 

Emancipation, of slaves, growth 
of movement from 1861 to 
1865, 231-240; considered by 
state convention of 1861, 232; 
by convention of 1862, 233; by 
convention of 1863, 236-237; 
Gradual Emancipation Ordi- 
nance adopted, 236; Radical 
Convention, 1863, demands im- 
mediate emancipation, 237-238 ; 
B. Gratz Brown on, 238; Or- 
dinance of, passed January 
11, 1865, 239-240; Fifteenth 
Amendment passed February 
6-9, 1865, 240. 

Escape, of slaves, 174-185, 203- 
207 ; gravity of situation in 
late fifties, 204-205. 

Evidence, offered by slaves, 75- 
77; how admitted, 76-77. 

Fifteenth Amendment, passed by 
Missouri legislature, February 
6-9, 1865, 240. 

Flint, Reverend Timothy, New 
England clergyman, on immi- 
gration to Missouri, 103. 

Free colored persons, own slaves, 
63. 

Freedom of slaves, suits for, 
213-219; Ordinance of 1787 
interpreted concerning, 215. 

Fremont, General John C., order 
of 1861 declaring slaves of 
rebels forfeited, 232. 

Gamble, Governor Hamilton R., 
opposes agitation of slavery 
issue, 117-118; minority opin- 
ion on Dred Scott case, 210- 
220; attitude toward emanci- 
pation, 231-238. 



Garrisonian movement. See Abo- 
lition. 

Germans, of Missouri, position 
on slavery, 165-167; support 
the Union, 165-167. 

Greeley, Horace, on Platte Pur- 
chase, 125. 

Griffin, John, Indiana judge, 60 n. 

Hardeman, J. Locke, on danger 
from abolitionists in Kansas, 
187-188. 

Harrison, William H, governor 
of Indiana, 60. 

Haskell, General J. G., of Kan- 
sas, on labor of Missouri 
slaves, 19. 

Head, Professor B. S., favors 
invasion of Kansas, 195. 

Hemp, culture of, 23-26. 

Hire, of slaves, 28-37 ; legal reg- 
ulation of, 28, 34-37; value of, 
29-33. 

Immigration, southern, to Mis- 
souri (1816-1820), 102-103. 

Indian slaves, position of, 79-80; 
holding of, forbidden by 
French and Spanish, 80-81 ; 
forbidden in Missouri (1834), 
81. 

Indiana, judges of, formulate 
Missouri slave code of 1804, 
58. 

Insurrection of slaves, not feared 
in Missouri, 75. 

Jackson, Claiborne F., introduces 
anti-Benton ("Jackson") Res- 
olutions of 1849, 154; opposes 
their repeal, 160; governor 
(1861), 231. 

"Jackson" ("Napton") Reso- 
lutions of 1849, W. B. Napton 
real author of, 153; how in- 
troduced in legislature, 153- 
154; vote on, 154; as a plot to 
remove Benton, 157-158; Whig 
position on, 159-160; break 
Democratic ranks, 160-162; 
Whigs use them as means to 
disrupt Democratic party, 162. 

Jenkins, Hunter Ben, on large 
slaveholders, 13. 



256 



INDEX 



Kansas League, subsidiary insti- 
tution of Platte City Self De- 
fensive Association, 193. 

Kansas, motives of Missourians 
in invasions of, 185-186; in- 
fluence of hemp culture in 
settlement of, 186-187; Mis- 
souri voters invade, 192-195. 

Kansas-Nebraska Act, popular 
among anti-Benton Democrats 
and pro-slavery Whigs, 190- 
191 ; Bentonites oppose, 191- 
192. 

Kentucky, Missouri settlers from, 
10; Missouri slave law based 
on that of, 59. 

Kibby, George, free negro, buys 
his wife's freedom, 221-222. 

Labor, of Missouri slaves, 18-28. 

Law and Order League of Platte 
County, 193. 

Lawless, Judge Luke E., on Mc- 
intosh affair, 118. 

Lexington Pro-Slavery Conven- 
tion, 1855, derides emancipa- 
tion movement in State, 169; 
call for, 200; composition and 
work of, 201-202; President 
Shannon's speech at, 201-202. 

Lincoln, President Abraham, vote 
received in Missouri (i860), 
171. 

Liquor, slaves buy and sell, 66- 
68. 

Louisiana, "District" of, sepa- 
rated from Louisiana Terri- 
tory and annexed to Indiana 
Territory (1804), 57; protest 
of citizens of, 57-58; their 
fear of emancipation, 100-101. 

Lovejoy, Reverend Elijah, agi- 
tation against slavery, 117-119. 

Lucas, Judge J. C. B., on treat- 
ment of slaves, 91 ; on slavery 
sentiment in 1820, 104; on im- 
mediate emancipation, 109. 

Lynch, Bernard M., slave-dealer, 
48-50. 

Mcintosh, Francis, free negro, 
burned by St. Louis mob, 00, 
117. 

Manumission of slaves, how re- 
garded by public opinion and 



the courts, 208; effect of bap- 
tism on, 208-209; constitution 
of 1820 provides for, 209-210; 
legal procedure of, 210-212; 
motives underlying, 219-220; 
number of cases of, in various 
counties, 223-227. 

Marion College, declaration of 
faculty of, on slavery, 121. 

Marion County, slavery agita- 
tion in, 120; attempted slave 
seductions from, 122. 

Marriage of slaves, in St. Louis 
R. C. Cathedral, 87; by Prot- 
estants, 88; civil status of, 88- 
89. 

Massachusetts Emigrant Aid So- 
ciety, condemned in Missouri, 
194-195- 

Massie, Reverend J. W., on 
emancipation ideas in Mis- 
souri, 234-235. 

Maximilian, Prince of Wied, on 
treatment of Missouri slaves, 
94t95- 

Medical care of slaves, 91-92. 

Methodists, of Missouri, oppose 
abolition, 126; position of, on 
slavery, 126-132; split on slav- 
er,, 127-129; Northern Metho- 
dists, position of, on slavery, 
129-131 ; ministers persecuted, 
130-131; refused charter for a 
university by legislature, 131; 
Southern Methodists, position 
of, on slavery, 128-129; church 
formed, 128-129. 

Mexican War, popular in Mis- 
souri, 139-140; volunteers for, 
furnished by Missouri, 140; 
opposed by Benton, 144-145. 

Missouri Argus, opposes eman- 
cipation, 116; criticizes Love- 
joy, 119 n. 

Missouri Gazette, favors restric- 
tion of slavery, 109 n. 

Missouri Herald, favors slavery, 
109 n. 

Missouri Intelligencer and 
Boone's Lick Advertiser, fa- 
vors slavery, 109 n. 
"Mormon War," slavery ele- 
ment in, 122-124. 
Mormons, attitude of, toward 
slavery, 122-124. 



INDEX 



257 



Muldrow, John, encounter with 
Bosley, 120. 

Napton, Judge W. B., leader in 
Lexington Pro-Slavery Con- 
vention, 202. 

"Napton" Resolutions. See 
" Jackson " Resolutions. 

Nelson, Reverend David, perse- 
cuted for antislavery views, 
120-121. 

Northern Methodists. See Meth- 
odists. 

Oregon, annexation of, favored 
in Missouri, 147; Benton op- 
posed to slavery in, 147. 

Overseers, few in number in 
Missouri, 27. 

Park, G. S., persecuted for anti- 
slavery statements, 198. 

Patrols, act establishing (1825), 
182-183 ; act establishing county 
(1837), J 83; duty of, irksome, 
183 n. 

Patterson, W. J., persecuted for 
antislavery views, 198. 

Paxton, William M., on hire of 
slaves, 30-31. 

Pettibone, Rufus, favors tem- 
porary slave importations, no. 

Phillips, William, of Kansas, 
tarred and feathered at Wes- 
ton, 198-199. 

Platte County Self Defensive 
Association, 193. 

Platte Purchase, slavery element 
in, 124-126. 

Polk, President James, on Ben- 
ton's attitude toward Texan 
question, 144-145. 

Post, Reverend Truman, position 
on slavery, 132-133. 

Presbyterian Church in Mis- 
souri, position of, on slavery, 

132-133. 

Price, Judge William C, enmity 
toward Benton, 149-150. 

Price, Robert B., on treatment 
of slaves, 91-92. 

Price, Sterling, on authorship of 
"Jackson" Resolutions, 153 5 
at Lexington Pro-Slavery Con- 
vention, 201. 

Procedure in slave trials, 77~7%- 



Profitableness of Missouri slave 

labor, 53-56. 
Pro-Slavery Aid Society of 

Buchanan County, 197. 
Property, not to be held by 

slaves, 63-64. 
Punishment, of slaves, 71-75; 

capital, 71-72; mutilation, 73; 

whipping, 74-76. 

Ragland, John H., large slave- 
holder, 14. 

Railroads, escape of slaves by, 
178-179. 

Religion, of slave, 85 ; negro 
churches in St. Louis, 85 ; 
Catholic Church and slaves, 
86-87. 

Responsibility of owner for acts 
of slave, 78-79. 

Rice, Reverend N. L., favors 
colonization, 230. 

Robards, J. L., on treatment of 
slaves, 91. 

Rollins, James S., on Benton's 
"Appeal," 150-160; position 
of, on slavery, 163-164; de- 
feated for governor, 172; on 
Kansas excitement, 199. 

St. Charles, ordinance of, 1821, 
requiring slaves to work streets, 
62-63. 

St. Clair, Governor Arthur, in- 
terprets slavery clause of Or- 
dinance of 1787, 215. 

St. Joseph Commercial Cycle, 
favors invasion of Kansas, 

195-197- 

St. Louis Bulletin, criticizes 
Lovejoy, 119. 

St. Louis, City of, as a slave 
market, 48-50; special slave 
problems of, 181-182. 

St. Louis Enquirer, favors slav- 
ery, 109 n. 

St. Louis University, holds slaves, 
86. 

Sanders, " Uncle " Eph, on treat- 
ment of slaves, 96. 

Scarritt, Reverend Nathan, pecu- 
liar position of, on slavery, 
131-132. 

Schoolcraft, H. R., on early 
Missouri slaves as miners, 21. 



258 



INDEX 



Scott, John, on slave sentiment 
in 1819, 105-106. 

Seward W. H., of New York, 
demands jury trial for rendi- 
tion of slaves, 135-136. 

Shannon, Reverend James, ac- 
cused of proslavery teaching, 
170; incites proslavery party, 
199; speaks at Lexington Pro- 
Slavery Convention, 200-201. 

Shipping, escape of slaves by, 
183-185; regulations to guard 
against escapes by, 183-184. 

Simpson, Robert, favors tem- 
porary slave importations, 110. 

Slave holdings, sizes of, 13-15 ; 
average size of, 13-18. 

Slave trade, domestic, 44—53 ; 
slave markets, 47-51. 

Slave traders, status of, 45-46; 
difficulties of, 50. 

Smith, General George R., on 
condition of slaves, 92; posi- 
tion of, on abolition, 171. 

Smith, Humphrey, emancipation- 
ist, 114. 

Smith, Jabez F., large slave- 
holder, 13-14. 

Southern Methodists. See Meth- 
odists. 

Starr, Reverend Frederick 
("Lynceus"), on slave hold- 
ings, 17 n. 

Statehood, petitions favoring, 
101-102. 

Status of the negro, fixed by 
Code of 1804, 58; by Code of 
1825. 58 n. 

Stringfellow, B. F., promoter of 
Platte County Self Defensive 
Association, 193 ; tract on slav- 
ery by, 193 n. 

Stringfellow, J. H., proslavery 
leader, 193. 

Strode, E. W., on treatment of 
slaves, 91. 

Sunday, work by slaves on, for- 
bidden, 27. 

Swinney, William, large slave- 
holder, 15. 

Switzler, Colonel William F., on 
popularity of Mexican War, 
140; on struggle over Wilmot 
Proviso, 141-142; derides eman- 
cipation movement, 169; dep- 
recates slavery agitation, 200. 



Tappan, Arthur, of New York, 
favors race equality, 112-113. 

Task system of slaves, in hemp 
culture, 25; in weaving, 26-27. 

Tennessee, settlers from, 10. 

Texan Treaty of 1844, Benton's 
position on, 144; causes his 
defeat, 145-146. 

Texas, annexation of, favored 
in Missouri, 137-140; Gover- 
nor Marmaduke's message on, 
137-138; opposed by H. R. 
Gamble, 138; resolutions on, 
137-138; favored by Demo- 
crats and Whigs, 139-140; 
cause of Benton's fall, 150-151. 

Thompson, George, Illinois abo- 
litionist, on treatment and con- 
dition of slaves in Missouri, 
98; attempted seduction of 
slaves by, 121. 

Tobacco, culture of, 26. 

Treaty of 1803 (Louisiana Pur- 
chase), section on slavery, 57. 

Trollope, Anthony, on St. Louis 
slaves, 19. 

Underground Railroad, escapes 
by, 185, 203-205. 

Value of slaves, 37-44; effect of 
Civil War on, 42-43. 

Van Buren, President Martin, 
his course on slavery agitation 
favored by Missouri legisla- 
ture, 135. 

Vanderburgh, Henry, Indiana 
judge, 60 n. 

Vansant, Abner, favors slavery 
restriction, no. 

Virginia, settlers from, 10; Mis- 
souri slave law based on slave 
laws of, 59-60, 66. 

Von Hoist, Hermann, on Platte 
Purchase, 125. 

Washington, Mrs. Anice, negress, 
on treatment of slaves, 97; on 
labor of slaves, 97- 

Weaving, task system in, 26-27. 

Wells, Carty, introduced anti- 
Benton ("Jackson") Resolu- 
tions of 1849, 153- 

Western Sanitary Commission, 
report of, on condition of 
slaves during Civil War, 98-99- 



INDEX 



259 



Whig party, supports Mexican 
War, 139-140; favors Benton, 
159-160; conservative force in 
Missouri politics, 163-164; po- 
sition on slavery, 163-164. 

White, Reverend David, expelled 
from Chillicothe for abolition 
sermons, 171. 

Wilmot Proviso, condemned by 
Missourians, 140-141 ; Benton's 
position on, 142. 

Wilson, Captain Joseph A., on 
hemp culture, 24; on slave 



trade, 51; on treatment of 
slaves, 96. 

Wilson, Colonel R. B. C, on 
condition of slaves, 93. 

Wilson, John, on emancipation 
movement of 1828-29, 112-113. 

Woodson, Silas H., favors settle- 
ment of Kansas by slave- 
holders, 106; organizes Pro- 
Slavery Aid Society of Bu- 
chanan County, 197. 

Work, Alanson, attempts to se- 
duce slaves, 121. 



VITA 

Harrison Anthony Trexler was born at Freeport, Illinois, 
December 6, 1883. He attended Bellevue College, where he 
graduated in 1906. He later took graduate work at the 
Universities of Missouri, Chicago, and Bonn, Prussia. In 
191 1 he entered the Johns Hopkins University and served 
as Fellow in the Department of History during the year 
1 91 2-1 3. He was in charge of the Department of History 
and Economics at Hardin College, Mexico, Missouri, during 
the years 1907-09. During 1910-11 he was Acting Pro- 
fessor of History and Economics at Allegheny College, and 
in 1913 he became Acting Professor of Economics at the 
University of Montana. 



